Filing Of Final Report No Bar To Granting Anticipatory Bail: J&K&L High Court

In a significant order clarifying the scope of anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023), the Jammu & Kashmir High Court has held that the filing of a final report (challan) before the competent court does not bar the grant of absolute anticipatory bail.

A bench of Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani observed that compelling an accused to seek regular bail after filing of the charge sheet would defeat the very object of pre-arrest protection guaranteed under Section 482 of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 438 of the CrPC (now repealed).

The order was passed by Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani in an application filed by Arif Ali Khan, who had sought pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 39/2025, registered at Police Station Safa Kadal, Srinagar, for offences under Sections 308(4), 329(5), 351(2), and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

After an interim pre-arrest bail was granted on June 5, 2025, the police filed the final report, following which the petitioner sought confirmation of the interim protection.

The Court held that even though the charge sheet had been filed, the petitioner's right to anticipatory protection continues, as the object of such protection is to safeguard personal liberty and prevent unnecessary arrest.

“The petitioner cannot be directed to seek regular bail from the learned Trial Court as the same shall defeat the purpose of the doctrine of pre-arrest bail covered under the provisions of Section 482 of the BNSS,” the Court observed.

The Court noted that the trial had already commenced, and therefore, there was no requirement for the petitioner's custody. It also observed that the offences in question do not attract the bar under Section 480 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 437 CrPC).

Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail was made absolute, and the petitioner was directed to comply with the conditions imposed earlier — including not tampering with evidence, attending the trial punctually, and not leaving the Union Territory of J&K without prior permission of the trial court.

The High Court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2011 SC 312) and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020), reaffirming that anticipatory bail can continue till the conclusion of trial and is not automatically extinguished upon filing of the charge sheet.

Case Details

Case Title: Arif Ali Khan v. Union Territory through Police Station Safa Kadal

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Taha Khaleel, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order