High Court Refusing Anticipatory Bail Exceeded Jurisdiction by Scheduling Same-Day Regular Bail Hearings: Supreme Court

Laxmi Ray v. State of Odisha & Ors. Decided 4 November 2026

Published: 12 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

In Laxmi Ray v. State of Odisha & Ors., the Supreme Court allowed a complainant's two appeals, setting aside an order of the High Court of Odisha dated 05.08.2025 and a regular bail order of 16.12.2025. Having concluded that the accused were not entitled to anticipatory bail, the High Court had gone on to direct when and where their bail pleas would be heard. The Court said those directions left the courts below no discretion and exceeded the High Court's jurisdiction (paras 9-11).

High Court Refusing Anticipatory Bail Exceeded Jurisdiction by Scheduling Same-Day Regular Bail Hearings: Supreme Court

Judgment Intelligence

Petition Allowed

Laxmi Ray v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10077 of 2026) with Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13443 of 2026)

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision: 4 November 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Relevant Acts & Sections: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 296, 3(5), 308(2) and 351(2)

Final Outcome

Appeals allowed; leave granted. The High Court's order of 05.08.2025 in ABLAPL No. 7215/2025 and the ADSJ's order of 16.12.2025 granting regular bail are set aside; respondent Nos. 2 to 4 may surrender and seek regular bail, to be considered on its own merits (paras 1, 11-12).

Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — order dated 4 November 2026 · Court's copy

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

Both appeals allowed: the High Court's order of 05.08.2025 and the ADSJ's bail order of 16.12.2025 are set aside (para 11).
Having found the accused not entitled to anticipatory bail, the High Court could not issue directions on their future course (para 9).
Fixing a time frame for the bail pleas left the JMFC and the ADSJ no discretion to assess the case independently (para 9).
The ADSJ's bail order, founded on those directions, could not be sustained either (para 10).
The accused may surrender and seek regular bail, to be considered on its own merits (para 12).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The appellant, Laxmi Ray, is the complainant in an FIR of 26.05.2025 at Police Station Khariar, District Nuapada, Odisha, under Sections 296, 3(5), 308(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 came to her workplace on 15.05.2025 and demanded money by threatening to defame her (para 2). On 05.08.2025 the High Court, noting the accused's criminal antecedents of a similar nature, expressed disinclination to entertain their pre-arrest bail plea, yet directed them to surrender before the JMFC within one month, with their bail pleas to be heard in the first and second hours of the same day (paras 3-4). The JMFC rejected bail; the ADSJ granted it on 16.12.2025 (paras 5-6).

Court's Findings

The Court recorded that the ADSJ, referring to the High Court's order, granted bail on parity with a co-accused, though the accused had criminal antecedents (para 8). It held that, having concluded that the accused were not entitled to anticipatory bail, ‘it was not for the High Court to then foretell the future course of action’ and issue directions on it (para 9). By also fixing the time frame for their bail applications, the High Court left the JMFC and the ADSJ no discretion to assess the case independently with proper application of mind; that discretion ‘stood curtailed’ by directions which ‘just stopped short of directing grant of bail straightaway’ (para 9). The directions exceeded the jurisdiction the High Court was exercising on an anticipatory bail application, and its order was ‘wholly unsustainable’ (paras 9-10). As the accused had acted on those directions to secure bail from the ADSJ, that order, whose foundation was the directions, could not be sustained either (para 10). The order cites no decision and records no view on the allegations, the antecedents or parity.

Legal Principle

A High Court that finds an accused not entitled to anticipatory bail should not go on to foretell the later course of the case and fix a timetable for regular bail: such directions curtail the discretion of the courts below and exceed its jurisdiction on that application, and a bail order founded on them cannot be sustained (paras 9-10).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

Where a High Court declines anticipatory bail, this order indicates that it should stop there. Directing the accused to surrender within a set time and fixing the hour in which the Magistrate and then the higher forum must hear their bail pleas leaves those courts no real discretion, and the Court treated such directions as beyond the High Court's jurisdiction (paras 4, 9). A bail order that rests on them can be set aside at the complainant's instance, as here (paras 7, 10-11). The accused keep the right to surrender and seek regular bail afresh, to be decided on its own merits (para 12).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Statutory Provisions: BNS