In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the mere addition of a new cognizable and non-bailable offense to the charge sheet does not automatically result in the re-arrest of an accused person who is already on bail. The Court explained that before making an arrest for the newly added offense, the agency must first get a suitable order from the court that granted bail.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan noted that "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; instead, it must obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail."

When More Serious Offenses Are Added
Citing Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi, it was decided that in these kinds of cases, courts had to think things through again.

The following was a summary of the principles:

(i) For newly introduced cognizable and non-bailable offenses, the accused may turn themselves in and request bail. The accused may undoubtedly be taken into custody if bail is refused.

(ii) The investigating agency may ask the court to issue an order for the accused's arrest and custody under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., respectively.

(iii) The Court may, in accordance with Sections 437(5) or 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., exercise its authority to order the arrest of an accused person whose bail has already been revoked. In the exercise of its authority under Sections 437(5) and 439(2), respectively, the Court may order the arrest and custody of an individual who has already been granted bail upon the addition of more serious and non-cognizable offenses, which may not always be required with an order to cancel earlier bail.

(iv) If the accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority cannot arrest the accused after they have been charged with additional offenses; instead, they must obtain an arrest order from the court that granted the bail.

The Court overturned the High Court's order, citing the five-judge bench finding in Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., (2020) 5 SCC 1. The Court noted that "once anticipatory bail is granted, it ordinarily continues without fixed expiry."The issuing of a summons, filing of a charge sheet, or taking of cognizance does not end protection unless there are documented unique circumstances.

As a result, the Court gave the appellant the advantage of anticipatory bail. But it also addressed a particular scenario: when an accused person is released on bail while the investigation is ongoing, but more cognizable and non-bailable offenses are added at the charge sheet filing stage.

The Bench considered whether the investigating agency could make an arrest of the accused based only on the newly added offenses and what the legal position would be in such a situation.

The Court issued the aforementioned observation in this context, making it clear that the investigating agency cannot just arrest the accused because new offenses have been added. The court that granted bail must issue an order.
 

Cause Title: SUMIT VERSUS STATE OF U P & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 147