Allahabad High Court Questions Grant Of Anticipatory Bail To Accused For Only 30 Days, Seeks Trial Judge's Explanation
The Allahabad High Court last week questioned a trial court's order granting anticipatory bail to 3 accused persons for a limited period of only 30 days, without disclosing any specific reason for restricting the protection to such a short period.
The Court has called for a proper explanation from the concerned Presiding Officer.
A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh was hearing an application under Section 528 BNSS filed by Suresh Yadav and two others, challenging the December 23, 2025 order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Azamgarh.
The trial court had allowed their anticipatory bail application but granted them protection only for 30 days.
The applicants argued before the High Court that there was no justification for imposing such a time limit, particularly since the police had not arrested them during investigation or even until filing of the charge-sheet.
The applicants also pointed out that the maximum punishment for the offences alleged against them was below seven years and that they had complied with the notice issued under Section 35(3) BNSS.
They relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) to submit that anticipatory bail could ordinarily continue until the conclusion of the trial, subject to appropriate conditions.
The High Court had earlier, on August 18, 2026, granted interim protection to the applicants and sought a report from the trial court explaining why anticipatory bail had been restricted to 30 days.
The Court noted that the charge sheet had already been submitted and that cognizance had been taken by the trial court. Yet, while allowing the anticipatory bail application, the trial judge did not record any specific finding explaining why protection was limited to 30 days.
The High Court observed that such an order would require the accused to seek another bail application after expiry of the 30-day period, resulting in "unnecessary harassment".
The concerned trial judge subsequently submitted an explanation dated September 3, 2026. However, the High Court was not satisfied with it.
The High Court has now directed the trial judge to submit a 'proper' explanation on three specific issues, which are as follows:
- The judge has been asked to state in how many cases he has granted bail to accused persons for limited periods such as 20, 30 or 40 days.
- He has been asked to explain the peculiar facts and circumstances that justified granting the applicants anticipatory bail for only 30 days, particularly when the maximum punishment for the alleged offences was below seven years and the applicants had not been arrested until filing of the charge-sheet.
- The Court has asked what the applicants were expected to do after the 30-day period expired, specifically, whether they would have to surrender before the trial judge and apply for anticipatory bail again.
The High Court also reiterated that a court can either allow an anticipatory bail application by granting protection till the conclusion of the trial, subject to conditions, or reject the application after considering the gravity of the offence.
The interim protection granted to the applicants has been extended.
The matter has been listed for September 30, 2026, and the Registrar (Compliance) has been directed to communicate the order to the District Judge, Azamgarh, for necessary compliance.
Also Read: Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Restricted Till Filing Of Chargesheet Ordinarily: Supreme Court
Case title - Suresh Yadav And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another