Bail | Pending Prosecution Sanction Cannot Justify Keeping Accused in Jail: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that where a charge-sheet has already been filed but sanction for prosecution is still pending, the continued detention of the accused is unjustified. It said the delay on the part of the sanctioning authority cannot be used to curtail the liberty of an accused.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu observed that a delay in granting sanction for prosecution cannot operate to the disadvantage of an accused by prolonging custody before the trial even begins.

The observation came while allowing the appeal of Ravinder Mehta, whose plea for regular bail had been rejected by the Allahabad High Court on March 20, 2026.

Mehta was arrested on December 9, 2025, in connection with an FIR registered at Adarsh Mandi Police Station in Uttar Pradesh's Shamli district under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Supreme Court noted that the investigation had already been completed and a charge-sheet was filed on February 7, 2026. The prosecution proposed to examine 19 witnesses during the trial.

However, Court found that sanction for prosecution had still not been granted, preventing the trial court from taking cognisance of the offence and commencing the trial.

"As it is, once the trial starts, conclusion thereof is likely to take time. However, what is of significance is that the sanction for prosecution is yet to be granted and, hence, the trial court is not in a position to take cognizance of the offence," the Bench observed.

When the Bench asked the counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh whether sanction had been granted, it noted that "No clear answer is furnished to us".

Counsel for the appellant argued that, in these circumstances, Mehta deserved to be released on bail pending trial.

Accepting the submission, the Bench said it would proceed on the basis that sanction had not yet been granted.

"We proceed on the basis that sanction is yet to be granted. The charge-sheet having been filed as far back as on 07th February, 2026, we are surprised that the sanctioning authority is yet to activate itself. The delay in grant of sanction to prosecute cannot be used to the disadvantage of a citizen for curtailing his liberty," Court said.

Taking an overall view of the matter, the Bench held that further detention of the appellant was unnecessary and set aside the Allahabad High Court's order refusing bail.

"Hence, we are inclined to accept the appeal and grant relief as prayed by admitting the appellant to an order for grant of bail," Court said.

Bail Subject to Conditions

The Supreme Court directed that Mehta be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to such other terms and conditions as may be imposed.

Court directed that the appellant must not, directly or indirectly, induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing those facts before the court. It clarified that any breach of the bail conditions would entitle the trial court to cancel the bail.

The Bench also directed the appellant to diligently attend the trial proceedings unless specifically exempted. It said that unjustified absence from court could also be treated as a breach of the bail conditions.

Lastly, the Supreme Court clarified that the observations made in the order were confined to the question of bail and would not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.

Case Title: Ravinder Mehta Vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu

Date of Judgment: July 17, 2026