Granting Pre-Arrest Protection While Refusing to Quash FIR is a Contradiction in Terms: Supreme Court

“High Court Cannot Refuse to Quash FIR Yet Grant Blanket Protection from Arrest…..Relief under Article 226 cannot be a substitute for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC,"  Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in Sanjay Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. & Others, ruling that a High Court cannot simultaneously decline to quash an FIR and yet grant blanket protection from arrest to the accused during investigation. The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that such a contradictory approach not only prejudices the ongoing investigation but also undermines the statutory safeguards provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The apex court categorically set aside the impugned orders of the Allahabad High Court dated June 16, 2025, and July 15, 2025, remanding the matter for a fresh hearing, directing that interim protection to the accused will continue till the High Court decides the petitions on merits.

“Granting Pre-Arrest Protection While Refusing to Quash FIR is a Contradiction in Terms”

The core issue in this appeal arose from two orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Brij Mohan Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. and Rajendra Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors.. In both petitions, the accused sought quashing of FIR No. 249 of 2025 registered under several provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 351(2), and 3(5), lodged at Police Station Chhata, District Mathura.

While the High Court did not find sufficient grounds to quash the FIR, it proceeded to restrain the arrest of the accused during the entire course of the investigation and until cognizance was taken by the competent court. The petitioners in the Supreme Court, led by complainant Sanjay Kumar Gupta, argued that such an order amounted to an impermissible judicial overreach and a misuse of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Court Condemns "Judicial Inconsistency", Citing Neeharika Infrastructure Judgment

Describing the High Court’s directions as “a stark example in self-contradiction”, the Supreme Court observed:

“The High Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction for quashing of the FIR and yet granted a blanket protection from arrest to the accused persons... which, in our opinion, has caused a grave prejudice to the investigation of the case. There is neither any logic nor any rationale behind such direction.”

The Court strongly relied upon its earlier authoritative pronouncement in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, reiterating that:

“Such a blanket interim order of not to arrest or ‘no coercive steps’ cannot be passed mechanically and in a routine manner.”

Quoting from Neeharika, the Court reminded that while High Courts possess wide powers under Article 226, these powers are not to be used as a proxy for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. Relief under Article 226 must be exceptional, warranted only in cases of clear abuse of process or when arrest would lead to manifest injustice.

The Court warned against converting writ petitions into “anticipatory bail proceedings through the backdoor,” stating:

“To grant the relief of pre-arrest bail in a criminal writ petition while refusing to exercise jurisdiction to quash the proceedings is totally unacceptable and impermissible…”

High Court Orders Set Aside – Matter Remanded with Interim Protection Continued

Finding the High Court’s orders legally unsustainable, the Supreme Court remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the quashing petitions on merits. It directed:

“The impugned orders dated 16th June, 2025 and 15th July, 2025 passed by the High Court are set aside… The High Court shall consider the petitions afresh and decide the same as per law without being prejudiced by any of the observations made in this Order or any other previous proceedings.”

To avoid prejudice and safeguard against arrest meanwhile, the Court permitted the interim protection already granted by the High Court to continue, clarifying that this would remain in force until the High Court re-decides the matter, preferably within four months from January 7, 2026.

The Court also clarified that such interim protection shall not be construed as validation of the High Court’s earlier order, which was held contrary to settled legal principles.

A Clear Message Against Misuse of Judicial Discretion Under Article 226

This ruling sends a strong and unambiguous message to the High Courts across the country: Article 226 is not a substitute for anticipatory bail, and “no arrest/no coercive steps” orders, especially when not accompanied by quashing of FIRs, distort the criminal justice process.

The judgment reaffirms that judicial discretion under Article 226 must be structured, sparing, and guided by statutory discipline—not driven by sympathy or expediency.

Date of Decision: December 1, 2025