Court's Permission Needed To Arrest Accused For Offence Added After Grant Of Bail : Supreme Court
Yash Mittal
12 Feb 2026 6:10 PM IST
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that an accused who is already on bail cannot be automatically re-arrested by the investigating agency merely because a new cognizable and non-bailable offence has been added in the charge sheet.
The Court clarified that the agency must first obtain an appropriate order from the court that granted bail before proceeding with the arrest in respect of the newly added offence.
“In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it needs to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan.
When Graver Offences Added
Referring to Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi, it held that courts must apply their mind afresh in such situations.
The principles were summarised :
(i) The accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In the event of refusal of bail, the accused can certainly be arrested.
(ii) The investigating agency can seek order from the court under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. respectively for arrest of the accused and his custody.
(iii) The Court, in exercise of its power under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. respectively, can direct for taking into custody the accused who has already been granted bail after cancellation of his bail. The Court in exercise of its power under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2) respectively can direct the person who has already been granted bail to be arrested and commit him to custody on addition of graver and non-cognizable offences which may not be necessary always with order of cancelling of earlier bail.
(iv) In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it needs to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail.
The bench made this observation while hearing a criminal appeal in a dowry death case against the Allahabad High Court's order granting a limited benefit of an anticipatory bail to the Appellant (brother-in-law of the deceased victim). The High Court ordered that the anticipatory bail order would be in operation till the filing of the charge sheet. Aggrieved by the High Court's denial of the extension of the anticipatory bail pursuant to the filing of the charge sheet, the Appellant moved to the Supreme Court.
Referencing five judge bench decision of Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Court set aside the High Court's ruling, noting that “once anticipatory bail is granted, it ordinarily continues without fixed expiry.”, and “the filing of a charge-sheet, taking of cognizance, or issuance of summons does not terminate protection unless special reasons are recorded.”
Resultantly, the Court granted the benefit of the anticipatory bail to the Appellant. However, it also addressed a specific situation: where an accused is granted bail during the course of investigation, but at the stage of filing the charge sheet, additional cognizable and non-bailable offences are incorporated.
The Bench examined what the legal position would be in such circumstances and whether the investigating agency could directly arrest the accused solely based on the newly added offences.
It was in this context that the Court made the aforesaid observation, clarifying that the investigating agency cannot automatically arrest the accused merely because new offences have been added. It must obtain an order from the court that granted bail.
Cause Title: SUMIT VERSUS STATE OF U P & ANR.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 147
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, AOR Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mata Prasad Singh, Adv. Mr. R.D. Rathore, Adv. Mr. Vinay Rajput, Adv. Ms. Ashiya Bano, Adv. Ms. Aakansha Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Shweta Bhadauria, Adv. Mr. Yugal Kishor Prasad, Adv. Mr. Bikash Chandra, Adv. Mr. Bishan Dass, Adv. Ms. Gitesh Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Mayank Tiwari, Adv.