‘Procedure unheard of’: Karnataka High Court restores anticipatory bail to stalking accused

The police filed a chargesheet following an investigation. Upon taking cognisance, the special court issued a warrant to Kankonkar, who appeared and subsequently filed an application for regular bail. The special court then issued notices to the state and the victim to file their responses.

However, on May 11, while the regular bail application was still pending, the victim’s mother appeared before the court and orally claimed that the accused was still following her daughter. Acting on this oral submission, the special court immediately ordered Kankonkar to be taken into custody.

Advocates Shadab H Yadwad and Abhijeet S Kankonkar, appearing for the accused, argued that the sessions judge ordered judicial custody without conducting any summary inquiry.

“Once the accused is on bail, either on anticipatory bail or regular bail, in a particular crime, his liberty cannot be taken away unless the grant of bail by the Court is cancelled either by the same court or by the higher court and the operation of the anticipatory bail would be in force till the conclusion of the trial,” they argued.

The government pleader, Avinash Malipatil, opposed the petition. He argued that the chargesheet prima facie points to a heinous crime committed against a minor, justifying the custody order based on the mother’s specific statements.

The High Court, in its order, noted that the accused had orally denied the assertions made by the mother of the victim before the special court. However, the special court, accepting the oral statement of the mother of the victim girl, proceeded to order the taking of the accused into custody,

The High Court also noted that the special court had granted the accused anticipatory bail, and that he had complied with the conditions imposed. Neither the state nor the victim has requested the cancellation of the bail granted to the accused.

The bench in the order said, “Admittedly, the application of the petitioner/accused for regular bail is pending before the Special Court. When things stood thus, I am of the considered view that, there was no occasion for the Special Court to pass the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 and order for taking custody of the accused without there being any order for cancellation of the bail or anticipatory bail granted by it.”

Supreme Court precedent applied

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court precedent set in Dr Rajesh Pratap Giri v State of UP (2021), which held that once anticipatory bail is granted, it remains operational even after a chargesheet is filed.

Allowing the petition, Justice Patil ruled that the special court had committed a “grave error”. The High Court directed the prison authorities to release Kankonkar forthwith and ordered the trial court to decide on his pending regular bail application strictly in accordance with law.

The bench, in its order, emphasised that the order directing the accused’s custody without an order cancelling the earlier granted bail or anticipatory bail for violating the imposed conditions was contrary to law.