Bnss · The Daily Bench

Allahabad High Court ·23 Sep 2026 ·Anticipatory Bail

Allahabad HC: anticipatory bail can be sought after chargesheet; Bharat Chaudhary prevails; bail extended till end of trial

The question: Is an application for anticipatory bail maintainable after the chargesheet has been submitted and the accused summoned?

The Allahabad High Court has held that an application for anticipatory bail is maintainable even after the chargesheet has been submitted and the accused has been summoned to face trial, and has extended the applicant's anticipatory bail until the conclusion of the trial. Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha, in an order marked A.F.R., preferred the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar over a later order of a bench of equal strength in Ram Pukar Yadav v. State of Bihar. The applicant, Pawan Kumar, had been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on 7 January 2026 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 10927 of 2025, but only till submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. / 193(3) BNSS. The chargesheet was then submitted and he was summoned. He filed a fresh application under Section 482 BNSS, NABAIL No. 7094 of 2026, contending that an application for anticipatory bail is maintainable after submission of the chargesheet. The Additional Advocate General argued at the outset that the application was not maintainable because the applicant no longer had any apprehension of arrest. The order was reserved on 20 July 2026 and delivered on 23 September 2026.

Allowed NABAIL/7094/2026

Telangana High Court ·29 Sep 2026 ·Anticipatory Bail

Telangana HC: anticipatory bail refused to accused who allegedly struck victim's head with iron rod, granted to two co-accused

The question: Should anticipatory bail be granted to all three accused in an assault arising from a land dispute?

The Telangana High Court has partly allowed a petition for anticipatory bail in a land-dispute assault case, refusing it to the accused who allegedly struck the victim on the head with an iron rod and granting it to two co-accused whose custody was not shown to be necessary. Justice N. Tukaramji held that an anticipatory bail petition is not a mini-trial and that parity cannot be applied mechanically merely because the accused are implicated in the same occurrence. The petitioners, Arikala Kumar and two others, are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 204 of 2026 of Havelighanpur Police Station, Medak District, for offences under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 126(2) and 352 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. They sought pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS. According to the prosecution, on 28 August 2026 at about 8 PM, against the backdrop of a land dispute, they wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant's father on his motorcycle and abused him. Accused No. 1 allegedly hit him on the head with an iron rod and accused No. 2 beat him with a stick, causing bleeding injuries. When the mother intervened, accused No. 1 allegedly hit her with the same rod and accused No. 2 also beat her.

Partly allowed CRLP/14306/2026