IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2026
(@ SLP(CRL.) No.15623/2026)
S.N.T. @ S.N.A.R. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
[NyayVidhan note: the charges include offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code, so this order is anonymised. The appellant's name and alias are shown by initials (S.N.T. @ S.N.A.R.); the prosecutrix is not named in the order. The FIR number and year, the police station and the district are withheld and marked [… withheld]. The High Court and Supreme Court case numbers and dates are kept. The appeal number is left blank in the signed order. Paragraphs 1-12 carry the Court's numbers. The record of proceedings of 29.10.2026, which follows the signed order, is given in abridged form, with the counsel for each side on one line and its order on one line. The digital-signature block, Registry signatures, page numbers and page footers are left out. The order's own wording is otherwise kept as printed.]
[Source: Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — order dated 29.10.2026.]
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s).
3. The appellant has been arraigned as an accused in connection with FIR No.[number and year withheld], registered at [police station and district withheld], for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 342, 376D, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, pursuant to being summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) based on the testimony of the prosecutrix before the Trial Court.
4. Pursuant to the said summons being issued, the appellant, on legal advise, sought for anticipatory bail which has been denied. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us.
5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that accused No.1, who is the principal accused, has already been acquitted and, in any case, this being a summons issued pursuant to an order passed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., there is no need for arresting the appellant.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that, at the instance of the appellant, the trial has been dragged on and, therefore, there is no need for interference with the impugned order.
7. We are of the considered view that, when a summoning order is issued under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., the Trial Court is not automatically expected to pass an order of arresting the accused. At that stage, the issue for consideration is as to whether such a detention of the accused is required for the conduct of the proceedings before the Trial Court. It is also not in dispute that the accused No.1 has already been acquitted.
8. Taking note of the above facts and circumstances, we are inclined to hold that there is need for arresting the appellant. Perhaps, the appellant has been ill-advised to file an application for anticipatory bail, as the Trial Court has not even exercised its power of ordering his arrest. Suffice it to state that the appellant shall cooperate with the conduct of trial while enjoying the benefit of anticipatory bail.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside, and the appellant is granted anticipatory bail, subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the concerned Trial Court.
10. We further make it clear that the Trial Court is at liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by us, in the event of the appellant’s non-cooperation with the conduct of trial.
11. The appeal stands allowed, accordingly.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………………………………………J.
[M.M. SUNDRESH]
………………………………………………………………………J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
29th OCTOBER, 2026
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.4 SECTION II
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 15623/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-03-2025 in CRMABAU482BNSS No. 1836/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad]
S.N.T. @ S.N.A.R. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 29-10-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Warisha Firasat, Sr. Adv., Mr. Fozia Rahman, Adv., Mr. Abdul Qadir, Adv., Mr. Sikander Ahmed Siddiqui, Adv., Ms. Swarna Swain, Adv., Ms. Smriti Kumari, Adv., Mr. Tejasvi Goel, Adv., Dr. Sandeep Singh, Adv., Mr. Kafeel Ahmed, Adv., Mr. Satish Pandey- 2834, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh- 1391, AOR, Mr. Bhrigu Nath Dubey, Adv., Mr. Srikant Singh, Adv., Mr. Srajan Shankar Kulshreshtha, Adv., Mr. Shivom Garg, Adv., Mr. Bhagat Singh, Adv., Mr. Annpurna, Adv., Mr. Amit Tyagi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER: Leave granted. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Signed order is placed on the file)
S.N.T. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
The text below is reproduced from the judgment for reference. The article summarises the Court's decision; refer to the original judgment for the authoritative text.