High Court Refusing Anticipatory Bail Cannot Dictate Regular Bail Terms to Trial Court, Says Supreme Court

The appellant is the complainant in FIR No. 208/2010 of 23.12.2010 at Police Station Rayagada, Odisha, under Sections 120B, 302, 201, 364 and 34 IPC, re-registered as FIR No. 10/2011 by the CID CB, Odisha, Cuttack (para 2). On 22.01.2026, deciding the accused's anticipatory bail applications (ABLAPL No. 13154/2024 and four others), the Orissa High Court said it was not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail, yet directed them to surrender and seek regular bail within two weeks, and directed the trial court to release each of them on bonds of ₹50,000 with two sureties, on conditions it set (para 3). Acting on those directions, the SDJM, Rayagada granted them bail on 30.01.2026 (para 4).

Once the High Court concluded that no case was made out for anticipatory bail, it was not for it to direct how the future should unfold (para 5). The High Court had not only advised the accused on their next course of action but also decided and dictated the terms on which the trial court was to grant them bail (para 5). These positive directions exceeded the jurisdiction it was exercising under Section 438 CrPC and completely usurped the role of the trial court on regular bail applications filed at the appropriate stage; in effect, the trial court was left with no discretion to decide them on their own merits and in accordance with law (para 5). The Court therefore set aside those directions, confirmed the rejection of anticipatory bail, and set aside the SDJM's order, which had followed them (paras 4, 6). The record of proceedings shows that the Court also dismissed the accused's own special leave petitions against the same High Court order, filed on 24.08.2026: having taken its benefit, their challenge was an abuse of process.