The Supreme Court has ruled that a High Court cannot dictate the terms of regular bail or prescribe the next course of action for an accused after rejecting an anticipatory bail plea, observing that such directions encroach upon the jurisdiction of the trial court.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva made the observation while hearing a complainant's appeal against an Orissa High Court order in a murder case. The High Court had refused anticipatory bail to the accused but directed them to surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail, while also instructing the lower court to release them on conditions specified by it.
The Supreme Court said the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by effectively deciding the regular bail applications in advance and leaving the trial court with no discretion to assess them independently.
"Once the High Court came to the conclusion that no case was made out for grant of anticipatory bail, it was not for the High Court to direct as to how the future should unfold. The High Court not only advised the respondents as to their next course of action but also decided and dictated the terms on which they were to be granted bail by the trial Court," the bench said.
The ruling came in the case of Jagannath Mandangi v. State of Odisha and others. The Supreme Court delivered its order on October 26, 2026.
Supreme Court sets aside bail granted by trial court
The case arose from an Orissa High Court order dated January 22, 2026, rejecting anticipatory bail applications filed by the accused. However, the High Court had directed them to surrender before the trial court and apply for regular bail within two weeks. It further instructed the trial court to release them on bail on conditions prescribed by the High Court, including execution of bonds of ₹50,000 each with two sureties.
Acting on those directions, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Rayagada, granted bail to the accused on January 30, 2026.
The complainant subsequently challenged the High Court's directions before the Supreme Court, arguing against the manner in which the lower court had been instructed to grant bail.
The apex court found that the High Court's directions went beyond the scope of its powers while deciding applications for anticipatory bail. It said the trial court should have been allowed to consider any regular bail applications on their own merits and in accordance with the law.
"The positive directions of the High Court, apart from being in excess of the jurisdiction that it was exercising under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, completely usurped the role to be played by the trial Court upon the filing of regular bail applications at the appropriate stage by the respondents. In effect, the trial Court was left with no discretion to adjudicate such bail applications on their own merits and in accordance with law," the bench observed.
Accused directed to surrender within two weeks
While setting aside the directions contained in paragraph 19 of the Orissa High Court's order, the Supreme Court upheld its decision to reject anticipatory bail.
The bench also set aside the SDJM's January 30 order granting bail to the accused in compliance with the High Court's directions. It ordered the accused to surrender within two weeks, adding that their bail bonds and sureties would stand discharged at that stage.
"The impugned order, to the extent it issued directions in paragraph 19 thereof is, accordingly, set aside. The order shall, however, stand confirmed insofar as rejection of the respondents' prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is concerned. In consequence, the order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rayagada, shall also stand set aside and the respondents shall surrender within two weeks. The bail bonds and sureties furnished by them shall stand discharged at that stage," the Supreme Court ordered.
The court clarified that the accused would remain free to seek relief before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage, in accordance with the law, following the rejection of their anticipatory bail applications.
"This order shall, however, not preclude the respondents from seeking relief at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, consequent upon the rejection of their anticipatory bail applications by the High Court," it said.
The Supreme Court also dismissed the accused persons' own challenge to the High Court order, observing that having taken advantage of the directions granting them a route to regular bail, their subsequent challenge amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
Case details and appearance
The proceedings arose from FIR No. 208/2010, registered on December 23, 2010, at Rayagada police station in Odisha under Sections 120B, 302, 201, 364 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was subsequently re-registered as FIR No. 10/2011 by the Crime Branch-CID, Odisha, in Cuttack.
The Supreme Court heard Criminal Appeal Nos. 5048-5052 of 2026, arising from Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 6555-6559 of 2026, along with SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 52077 of 2026.
Advocates appearing for the petitioner included Tushar Garg and Vandana Kaushal, both Advocates-on-Record, along with Dhruv Raman Singh, Dr Sumit, Himanshu Shammi, Rithin Gopi TG, Suchit Mohanty, Samarth Mohanty and Talat Chaudhary.
The respondents were represented by senior advocate R. Basant, Advocates-on-Record Anjuman Tripathy, Tushar Garg, Rashmi Nandakumar and Anindita Mitra, along with Mohit Singh Sikarwar, Raunak Arora, Debabarata Dash, Apoorva Sharma, Amit P. Bose, Aditi Gouda, Soubhagya Ranjan Pati, Deepak Zindal, Pooja Garg, Shomona Khanna, Yashmita Pandey, Ayesha Nasir Alavi and Srishti Ghoshal.