Anticipatory Bail Is an Exceptional Relief, Not a Rule: Supreme Court
Supreme Court sets aside anticipatory bail in a murder case, holding that pre-arrest bail must be granted only in exceptional cases and filing of charge sheet against co-accused is not enough.
The Supreme Court has said the discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail is to be exercised with circumspection and only in exceptional cases, especially where the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of serious offences necessitating custodial interrogation.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta pointed out issues relating to delay in registration of the FIR and non-recovery of the dead body are matters to be examined during investigation and trial and cannot form the basis for granting pre-arrest bail.
"Merely because a charge sheet has been filed against the co-accused only does not justify granting anticipatory bail,'' the bench said.
The appeal filed by Salochana Pardi assailed the judgment and order dated of September 26, 2025 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, arising under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to Respondent No.2 in connection with the crime registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120- B, 201, 364 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
On March 3, 2017, a complaint was lodged by Ms Appi Bai, mother of the alleged deceased Atmaram, before the Station House Officer, Dharnavada, reporting that her son, Atmaram Pardi, was missing and alleging involvement of unknown persons. A missing person report and an FIR were registered in 2017.
On June 9, 2015, the appellant, complainant and Atmaram along with other relatives were present near a river for a cremation. As per the allegations, Respondent No.2, along with certain other police personnel, fired gunshots at Atmaram, abducted him and took him to an unknown location eventually resulting in his death. The dead body of Atmaram has not been recovered till date.
A charge sheet was filed against two accused and the investigation was pending qua the respondent no 2. He absconded and a proclamation was issued against him. His first application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the High Court on January 23, 2025.
By the impugned order on September 26, 2025, the High Court allowed anticipatory bail to Respondent No.2 on the ground that no prima facie case was made out against him.
After hearing the rival submissions and a perusal of the material on record, the bench said, "We are of the considered view that the High Court was not justified in granting anticipatory bail to Respondent No.2. At this stage, Respondent No.2 has failed to demonstrate the absence of a prima facie case so as to warrant the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.''
The court noted, the High Court appears to have been influenced primarily by the statement of the wife of the deceased and the fact that a chargesheet has been filed against the co-accused.
"However, the record discloses prima facie material, including statements of witnesses, indicating the involvement of Respondent No.2 in the alleged crime. The nature and gravity of the allegations, which include offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, render the grant of anticipatory bail wholly disproportionate,'' the bench said.
The court opined the fact that Respondent No.2 has been dismissed from service and is in custody in another criminal case does not advance his case for grant of anticipatory bail. Issues relating to delay in registration of the FIR and non-recovery of the dead body are matters to be examined during investigation and trial and cannot, at this stage, form the basis for granting pre-arrest bail.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the court found, no such exceptional grounds are discernible so as to warrant the grant of anticipatory bail.
The bench allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order. It clarified appropriate steps may be taken by the Investigating Officer to take the Respondent no 2 into judicial custody in the present case.
Case Title: Salochna Pardi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of judgment: 6th January, 2026