INTRODUCTION
This article analyses the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanjay Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors., Criminal Appeal (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 17464–17465 of 2025), delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta. The Judgment, pronounced on 1 December 2025, examines the legality of the Allahabad High Court’s Orders granting blanket protection from arrest to accused persons while simultaneously refusing to quash the FIR—an approach the Supreme Court found to be self-contradictory and unsustainable.
BRIEF FACTS
The Appellant–Complainant challenged two Orders of the Allahabad High Court dated 16 June 2025 and 15 July 2025, passed in separate criminal writ petitions filed by the accused persons seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Police Station Chhata, District Mathura. The FIR alleged offences under multiple 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).
The High Court declined to quash the FIR but nonetheless directed that:
• Investigation be completed within 60/90 days, and
• The accused persons “shall not be arrested” until cognizance is taken.
This effectively granted them pre-arrest protection despite the High Court’s own finding that the FIR did not merit quashing.
ISSUES OF LAW
1) Whether the High Court, while dismissing or not entertaining a petition for quashing an FIR, can nevertheless grant blanket protection from arrest to the accused.
2) Whether granting such pre-arrest protection in a criminal writ petition amounts to bypassing the statutory mechanism for anticipatory bail available under the CrPC/BNS framework.
3) Whether the High Court’s directions interfered with the course of investigation and caused prejudice to the complainant.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court found the Orders of the Allahabad High Court to be a “stark example in self-contradiction.” On one hand, the High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction to quash the FIR. On the other, it granted broad and unqualified immunity from arrest until the filing of the Charge Sheet. The Court held that this amounted to indirectly granting anticipatory bail despite the specific availability of a statutory remedy for such relief before the Sessions Court.
The Bench emphasised that Uttar Pradesh has incorporated provisions for pre-arrest bail and any accused seeking such protection must necessarily pursue the remedy of anticipatory bail under the statutory scheme. By offering this protection in a criminal writ petition, the High Court effectively short-circuited the legislative mandate and re-fashioned Article 226 jurisdiction into a surrogate for Section 438 CrPC proceedings.
The Supreme Court relied extensively on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401, reiterating that courts must avoid passing routine or mechanical “no arrest” or “no coercive steps” orders when they have already refused to quash the criminal proceedings. Such relief, under Article 226, is permissible only in rare, exceptional cases where denying protection would cause a grave miscarriage of justice. The High Court’s Order, in contrast, lacked reasoning, lacked urgency and lacked any foundation for invoking such extraordinary power.
The Court further noted that such interim protection seriously prejudices the ongoing investigation, especially when granted at the very threshold of criminal proceedings. Directions to complete investigation within fixed time frames (60/90 days) further compounded the interference. The Judgment reinforces the principle that investigative autonomy cannot be curtailed merely because an accused chooses to invoke the writ jurisdiction without demonstrating exceptional circumstances.
In essence, the Supreme Court restored the structural balance: writ courts cannot become alternative anticipatory bail courts and judicial discretion must align with procedural propriety and statutory safeguards governing pre-arrest protection.
CONCLUSION
The Judgment in Sanjay Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. serves as a corrective reminder of the limits of writ jurisdiction in criminal matters. The Supreme Court’s decision firmly re-establishes that when High Courts decline to quash an FIR, they cannot simultaneously grant blanket immunity from arrest, for such directions disrupt the investigation and undermine statutory remedies.
By setting aside the High Court’s Orders and remitting the petitions for fresh consideration, the Supreme Court underscored that judicial discretion must remain principled, consistent and anchored within the statutory framework. This decision strengthens doctrinal clarity on the interplay between Article 226 powers and anticipatory bail jurisprudence, ensuring that extraordinary constitutional remedies remain true to their purpose—and are not used to circumvent established criminal procedure.
SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Rights of Husband in False Matrimonial Cases | 498A Misuse | 2025 Judgments Explained|” can be viewed at the link below: