Supreme Court rules High Courts cannot dictate terms for future regular bail after denying anticipatory relief

NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court has ruled that High Courts lack the authority to issue binding directions controlling future regular bail proceedings after dismissing an anticipatory bail plea.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva delivered the ruling while allowing appeals filed by complainant Laxmi Ray. The court set aside an August 5, 2025, order issued by the Orissa High Court alongside a subsequent regular bail grant issued by an Additional District and Sessions Judge on December 16, 2025.

According to the bench, once a High Court determines that an accused individual is not entitled to anticipatory bail, it has no jurisdiction to dictate how lower forums must handle subsequent regular bail applications.

The case stems from an incident on May 15, 2025, when complainant Laxmi Ray alleged that three individuals—identified as Trinath Sahu, Pabitra Mohan Sahu, and Ranjan Kumar Mahanti—visited her workplace, demanded money, and threatened to defame her. An FIR was subsequently registered on May 26, 2025, at the Khariar police station in Odisha’s Nuapada district under Sections 296, 3(5), 308(2), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Seeking protection from arrest, the three accused approached the Orissa High Court. While the High Court declined to grant pre-arrest bail, it directed the accused to surrender before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) in Khariar within one month, while ordering that both the JMFC and higher forums consider any subsequent bail applications on the same day.

Following the surrender, the JMFC rejected the bail plea. However, the Additional District and Sessions Judge subsequently granted regular bail on the same day, citing the earlier directives issued by the High Court.

Setting aside those decisions, the Supreme Court emphasized that judicial bodies cannot predetermine or manage the outcome of independent statutory proceedings once pre-arrest relief is refused.

Following the apex court’s ruling, the three accused remain free to surrender and apply for regular bail before the appropriate court, where any fresh application must be decided strictly on its own merits.