SC Protects Man Despite Pending Anticipatory Bail, Says HC Should Have Considered Interim Relief at Admission Stage

The Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale issued notice, returnable in six weeks, and directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner pursuant to FIR No. 227 of 2018 dated October 5, 2018, registered at Police Station Nagina, District Nuh.

Advocate Amit Sangwan appeared for the petitioner. 

The Court made the relief conditional on the petitioner cooperating with the probe, directing him to appear before the Investigating Officer on October 3, 2025, during working hours, or on any other date fixed by the officer. "For which purpose, we direct the petitioner to appear before the IO on 03.10.2025 during the working hours or any other date that may be notified by him," the Bench ordered. 

The petitioner’s anticipatory bail application (CRM-M No. 53587 of 2025) was adjourned to October 27, 2025, after notice was issued, but without any ad-interim protection from arrest. Arguing before the apex court, the petitioner submitted that such a course of action violates established principles laid down by the Supreme Court in multiple rulings.

Citing Ashutosh Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh (SLP (Crl.) No. 12694/2024), the plea highlighted the Court’s observation that when notice is issued in anticipatory bail matters, interim relief should ordinarily be granted for a limited period to protect the applicant until the matter is heard. Similarly, in Prabhu Narayan Ram v. State of U.P. (SLP (Crl.) No. 6987/2024), the Apex Court had emphasized that courts must either grant or reject interim protection but cannot simply adjourn without deciding.

The petition also relied on Rajesh Seth v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022), where the Supreme Court disapproved of indefinite adjournments in anticipatory bail matters, holding that failure to decide interim relief undermines the valuable right to personal liberty.

On facts, the petitioner pointed out that he was not named in the FIR registered on October 5, 2018, concerning the alleged abduction of Zakir Hussain. The investigation had been closed multiple times without implicating him. His name surfaced only through a counter-affidavit by the complainant, without any fresh evidence or specific role attributed. The petitioner also noted that he cooperated with the police when summoned twice, and no incriminating material was found against him.

Alleging that the proceedings are tainted with mala fide intent and amount to abuse of process, the petitioner urged the Supreme Court to grant interim protection from arrest until the High Court finally disposes of the anticipatory bail plea.