Supreme Court: In an appeal arising from the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 28 January 2026, granting anticipatory bail to Respondent 2, against whom 22 FIRs were registered for different offences, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., set aside the impugned order holding that “criminal antecedents of Respondent 2 by itself were sufficient for the High Court to deny anticipatory bail”.
The instant matter the offences alleged against Respondent 2 were under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and High Court granted with anticipatory bail. The appellant, being the de facto complainant, challenged the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail. Despite service of notice, Respondent 2 neither appeared in person nor through counsel to oppose the appeal.
The Court expressed strong disapproval of the High Court’s approach, observing that it was “very unfortunate” that anticipatory bail was granted to an accused against whom 22 FIRs were registered, especially when the High Court had been made aware of these antecedents. Further, the accused was already in judicial custody in another case.
The Court emphasised the criminal antecedents of the accused, by themselves, were sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court granting anticipatory bail to Respondent 2. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
[Sharad Sehgal v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5309 of 2026), decided on 27-4-2026]
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
