The Allahabad High Court questioned a trial court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to three accused for only 30 days without recording any specific reason for imposing the time limit.
Justice Madan Pal Singh also directed the judge to state in how many cases he had granted bail for limited periods such as 20, 30 or 40 days.
The judge 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 the charge-sheet was filed.
It also asked what the applicants were expected to do after the 30-day period expired, including whether they would have to surrender before the trial court and seek anticipatory bail again.
The court was hearing an application 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 limited the protection to 30 days.
The applicants argued that there was no justification for imposing the time limit as they had not been arrested during the investigation or until the filing of the charge-sheet. They relied on the Constitution Bench judgment of Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), submitting that anticipatory bail could ordinarily continue until the conclusion of the trial, subject to appropriate conditions.
The HC had on August 18, 2026 granted interim protection to the applicants and sought a report from the trial court on why the anticipatory bail had been restricted to 30 days.
The court noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed and cognizance taken, but the trial judge had not recorded any specific finding explaining the 30-day limit. It observed that such an order could require the accused to seek another bail application after the protection expired, causing “unnecessary harassment”.
The trial judge subsequently submitted an explanation dated September 3, 2026, but the High Court was not satisfied with it and directed him to submit a ‘proper’ explanation.
The HC also reiterated that a court can either grant anticipatory bail until the conclusion of the trial, subject to conditions, or reject the application after considering the gravity of the offence.
The matter has been listed for September 30, 2026.
