Landmark Supreme Court judgments on bail

Introduction

Over the last three decades, the Supreme Court of India has steadily transformed the law of arrest from a broad police power into a constitutionally disciplined, rights‑oriented process. The Court has insisted that arrest must be lawful, necessary, documented and reviewable, not a reflex or a tool of harassment.

This evolution runs through a series of landmark judgments—on judicial officers, ordinary citizens, women, under‑trials and high‑profile accused—culminating in a recent mandate for written grounds of arrest in all cases.

Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat

Print Page

Supreme Court: Arrest Under S. 35(6) of BNSS Must Be Based On Fresh Material, Not On Grounds In S.35(3) Notice

 Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023 lays down the procedure to be followed in case of non-compliance with the notice issued by the Investigating Agency Under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. Non-compliance with a notice does not ipso facto mandate arrest, as there lies a discretion with the Investigating Agency, which must be of the opinion that the arrest of the concerned person is necessary for the purpose of investigation. In other words, failure to comply with the notice does not lead to automatic arrest. Rather, it is the last resort available to the Investigating Agency, after due exercise of discretion regarding the necessity of arrest. {Para 23}

27. We have already clarified the position qua Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023 in our earlier order dated 16.07.2025 wherein, it has been stated that even assuming that the person to whom a notice Under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 has been issued, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, an arrest is not a matter of course.

28. We have also clarified, on the earlier occasion, that the procedure contained in Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023 has been introduced on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. These inbuilt safeguards are required to be complied with by the police officer, in letter and spirit.

29. From a conspectus of the above, it is amply clear that even if the conditions mentioned Under Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023 are in existence, there can be no mandatory arrest, as a police officer still may or may not decide to do so.

30. While making an arrest Under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023, after the stage of issuing a notice seeking presence Under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, the circumstances and factors that were in existence at the time of issuing the said notice shall not be taken into consideration by a police officer while making an arrest subsequently. In other words, for effecting an arrest Under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023, it must be based upon materials and factors which were not available with the police officer at the time of issuing a notice Under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, the power of arrest Under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023 is to be exercised rather sparingly, only under circumstances as aforementioned.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MA No. 2034 of 2022 in MA No. 1849 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and MA No. 2035 of 2022 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021

Decided On: 15.01.2026

Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Citation:  2026 INSC 115, MANU/SC/0119/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: For Offences Punishable Up To 7 Yrs, arrest is exception and not rule;S.35(3) BNSS Notice Mandatory In Such Cases

33. On the basis of the interpretation given by us, we conclude as follows:

a. An arrest by a police officer is a mere statutory discretion which facilitates him to conduct proper investigation, in the form of collection of evidence and, therefore, shall not be termed as mandatory.

b. Consequently, the police officer shall ask himself the question as to whether an arrest is a necessity or not, before undertaking the said exercise.

c. For effecting an arrest, qua an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, the mandate of Section 35(1)(b)(i) of the BNSS, 2023 along with any one of the conditions mentioned in Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS, 2023 must be in existence.

d. A notice Under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 to an Accused or any individual concerned, qua offences punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, is the rule.

e. Even if the circumstances warranting an arrest of a person are available in terms of the conditions mentioned Under Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, the arrest shall not be undertaken, unless it absolutely warranted.

f. Power of arrest Under Section 35(6) read with Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, pursuant to a notice issued Under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 is not a matter of routine, but an exception, and the police officer is expected to be circumspect and slow in exercising the said power.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MA No. 2034 of 2022 in MA No. 1849 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and MA No. 2035 of 2022 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021

Decided On: 15.01.2026

Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Citation:  2026 INSC 115, MANU/SC/0119/2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court's Categorized Bail Guidelines: Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2021 and 2022)

 This Supreme Court judgment in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2021) established crucial bail guidelines that streamline the bail process for different categories of offenses. Here's a simplified breakdown: 

Key Concept

The Supreme Court created a categorized approach to bail applications to reduce unnecessary litigation and provide clarity to lower courts. These guidelines apply only when specific conditions are met.

Print Page

Parliament's Incorporation of Supreme Court Directions in BNSS: A Landmark Integration of Judicial Wisdom

 Introduction

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, which replaced the Criminal Procedure Code 1973, represents a significant milestone in India's criminal justice reform. One of the most noteworthy aspects of this new legislation is how Parliament has systematically incorporated key directions and principles established by the Supreme Court, particularly those outlined in the landmark case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022). This integration demonstrates a remarkable convergence between judicial wisdom and legislative intent, creating a more balanced and rights-oriented criminal procedure framework.

The Satender Kumar Antil Foundation

Print Page

Supreme court: Police Shouldn't Serve S.41A CrPC/S.35 BNSS Notice Through WhatsApp Or Electronic Means

 Having heard the parties and having deliberated upon the aforesaid submissions, this Court in furtherance of Paras. 100.2, 100.8 and 100.9 of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51, and its previous directions contained in earlier orders, deems it necessary to issue the following directions :

a) All the States/UTs must issue a Standing Order to their respective Police machinery to issue notices under Section 41-A of CrPC, 1973/Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 only through the mode of service as prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023. It is made amply clear that service of notice through WhatsApp or other electronic modes cannot be considered or recognised as an alternative or substitute to the mode of service recognised and prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023.

b) All the States/UTs while issuing Standing Orders to their respective Police machinery relating to Section 41-A of CrPC, 1973/Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 must be issued strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Delhi High Court in Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya (DCP) & Ors., 2021 SCC Online Del 5629 and Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT Delhi), 2018 SCC Online Del 13448, both of which were upheld by this Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51.

c) All the States/UTs must issue an additional Standing Order to their respective Police machinery to issue notices under Section 160 of CrPC, 1973/Section 179 of BNSS, 2023 and Section 175 of CrPC, 1973/Section 195 of BNSS, 2023 to the accused persons or otherwise, only through the mode of service as prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Miscellaneous Application No. 2034/2022 in MA 1849/2021 in

SLP(Crl) No. 5191/2021

SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR. 

Date : 21-01-2025 These applications were called on for hearing

today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Print Page

LLM Notes: Guardians of Liberty: The Supreme Court's Crusade for Undertrial Prisoners in India

 In a country where over 75% of the prison population comprises undertrial prisoners and prisons operate at 118% capacity, the Supreme Court of India has emerged as a critical guardian of liberty, consistently working to address the systemic crisis of undertrial detention. Through landmark judgments and robust directives, the Court has transformed bail jurisprudence and established mechanisms to prevent unnecessary pre-trial detention.

The Undertrial Crisis: A Judicial Awakening

The serious judicial intervention on behalf of undertrial prisoners began as early as 1979, when reports in The Indian Express highlighted the plight of thousands languishing in prisons without trial. This led to the landmark Hussainara Khatoon judgment, where the Supreme Court established speedy trial as a fundamental constitutional right.

Print Page

Various Judgments of Supreme court of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

 1) Supreme Court Guidelines in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors dated 07.10.2021

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021

Decided On: 07.10.2021

Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.

Authored By : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh

Citation: MANU/SC/1024/2021.

https://www.lawweb.in/2025/02/supreme-court-guidelines-in-case-of.html

2) Supreme Court: The Courts should give expanded interpretation to S 436A of CRPC for expediating release of the accused on bail

Print Page

Supreme Court Guidelines in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors dated 07.10.2021

3. We are inclined to accept the Guidelines and make them a part of the Order of the Court for the benefit of the Courts below. The Guidelines are as under:

Categories/Types of Offences:

(A) Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in Category B & D.

(B) Offences punishable with Death, Imprisonment for Life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years.

(C) Offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail like NDPS (Section 37), PMLA (Section 45), UAPA [Section 43-D(5)], Companies Act, 212(6), etc.

(D) Economic offences not covered by Special Acts. Requisite Conditions:

(1) Not arrested during investigation.

(2) Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before Investigating Officer whenever called.

(No need to forward such an Accused along with the Charge-sheet (Siddharth v. State of U.P.   MANU/SC/0600/2021 : 2021 (3) MWN (Cr.) 1 (SC))

Category A:

After filing of Charge-sheet/Complaint taking of cognizance--

(a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through Lawyer.

(b) If such an Accused does not appear despite service of Summons, then Bailable Warrant for physical appearance may be issued.

(c) NBW on failure to failure to appear despite issuance of Bailable Warrant.

(d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a Bailable Warrant/Summons without insisting physical appearance of Accused, if such an Application is moved on behalf of the Accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the Accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.

(e) Bail Applications of such Accused on appearance may be decided w/o the Accused being taken] in physical custody or by granting Interim Bail till the Bail Application is decided.

Category B/D:

On appearance of the Accused in Court pursuant to process issued bail application to be decided on merits.

Category C:

Same as Category B & E with the additional condition of compliance of the provisions of Bail under NDPS, Section 37, Section 45 of PMLA, Section 212(6) of Companies Act Section 43-D(5) of UAPA, POSCO, etc.

4. Needless to say that the Category A deals with both Police cases and Complaint cases.

5. The Trial Courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid Guidelines while considering Bail Applications. The caveat which has been put by learned ASG is that where the Accused have not cooperated in the investigation nor appeared before the Investigating Officers, nor answered summons when the Court feels that Judicial custody of the Accused is necessary for the completion of the trial, where further investigation including a possible recovery is needed, the aforesaid approach cannot give them benefit, something we agree with.

6. We may also notice an aspect submitted by Mr. Luthra that while issuing Notice to consider bail, the Trial Court is not precluded from granting Interim Bail taking into consideration the conduct of the Accused during the investigation which has not warranted arrest. On this aspect also we would give our imprimatur and naturally the Bail Application to be ultimately considered, would be guided by the Statutory provisions.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021

Decided On: 07.10.2021

Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.

Authored By : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh

Citation: MANU/SC/1024/2021,, (2021) 10 SCC 773

Print Page