Regular Bail Conditions are for the trial court to weigh once an accused surrenders, not for a High Court that has just refused anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court has held, setting aside Orissa High Court directions that had effectively assured bail to the accused in a 2010 murder case.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has confirmed the Orissa High Court’s refusal of anticipatory bail but struck down the rest of that order, which told the accused to surrender and seek regular bail and then directed the trial court to release them on conditions the High Court itself had fixed, holding that such directions usurped the trial court’s role [Jagannath Mandangi v. State of Odisha & Anr. etc.].
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva disposed of the complainant’s appeals on October 26, 2026, setting aside the bail directions while confirming the rejection of anticipatory bail, and directed the accused to surrender within two weeks.
Where Section 438 ends
The Bench held that once the High Court had found no case for anticipatory bail, its job under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was done, and it had no business mapping out what would follow.
“Once the High Court came to the conclusion that no case was made out for grant of anticipatory bail, it was not for the High Court to direct as to how the future should unfold. The High Court not only advised the respondents as to their next course of action but also decided and dictated the terms on which they were to be granted bail by the trial Court.”
The Court said the positive directions went beyond the High Court’s jurisdiction and left the trial court with no real choice.
“The positive directions of the High Court, apart from being in excess of the jurisdiction that it was exercising under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, completely usurped the role to be played by the trial Court upon the filing of regular bail applications at the appropriate stage by the respondents. In effect, the trial Court was left with no discretion to adjudicate such bail applications on their own merits and in accordance with law.”
The order of January 22, and what followed from it
The appellant, Jagannath Mandangi, is the complainant in FIR No. 208 of 2010 registered on December 23, 2010 at Rayagada Police Station in Odisha for offences under Sections 120B, 302, 201, 364 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was re-registered as FIR No. 10 of 2011 on April 5, 2011 by the CID Crime Branch, Odisha, Cuttack.
By an order dated January 22, 2026 in five anticipatory bail applications (ABLAPL Nos. 13154, 12708, 13155, 13820 and 13901 of 2024), the Orissa High Court expressly said it was not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail. Having said so, it directed the accused to surrender before the trial court and apply for regular bail within two weeks, and directed the trial court to release each of them on a bail bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties.
The High Court also fixed further conditions: no criminal activity while on bail, no harassment or threats to prosecution witnesses, no tampering with evidence, appearance on every date unless exempted, and no leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission. Acting on those directions, the accused surrendered and the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Rayagada, granted them bail on January 30, 2026.
The directions
The Supreme Court set aside paragraph 19 of the High Court’s order, which carried the bail directions, but confirmed the rejection of anticipatory bail. As a consequence, the SDJM’s bail order of January 30, 2026 was also set aside, and the accused were directed to surrender within two weeks, with their bail bonds and sureties to stand discharged at that stage.
The Court clarified that the order would not prevent the accused from seeking relief at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Accused’s own petitions dismissed as abuse of process
The accused had also filed their own special leave petitions on August 24, 2026, challenging the same January 22 order to the extent it refused anticipatory bail. The Bench noted that they had already taken the benefit of that very order and had moved only after the complainant’s petitions were filed. Calling the attempt one “to steal an advantage”, it held the petitions to be “nothing short of an abuse of process” and dismissed them along with the delay-condonation application.
The allegations in the FIR remain to be tested at trial. The Supreme Court’s order deals only with the scope of the High Court’s bail directions and expresses no view on the merits, and the accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Why the order matters
Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC and regular bail after surrender are separate remedies, decided by different courts at different stages. The order reaffirms that a High Court deciding a pre-arrest plea cannot decide the regular bail application in advance by fixing its outcome and terms, because doing so leaves the trial court, which has to weigh the material at the time of surrender, with nothing to decide.
In practice, the ruling targets a pattern of “refuse and release” orders, where anticipatory bail is formally declined but the accused are assured release on surrender. Such orders now risk being set aside at the complainant’s instance, as happened here, sending the accused back into custody despite having complied with the High Court’s directions.
Case Title: Jagannath Mandangi v. State of Odisha & Anr. etc. [Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6555-6559 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 26, 2026
Impugned order: Orissa High Court, January 22, 2026, in ABLAPL Nos. 13154, 12708, 13155, 13820 and 13901 of 2024
For the Appellant: Tushar Garg (AOR), with Dhruv Raman Singh and others
For the Respondents: R. Basant (Senior Advocate), Anjuman Tripathy (AOR), Rashmi Nandakumar (AOR), Anindita Mitra (AOR) and others