Supreme Court: High Court cannot dictate regular bail terms to trial court

The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to dictate the terms of regular bail to the trial court.

Who it concerns: Appellant: Jagannath Mandangi (Complainant); Respondents: State of Odisha and private respondents (accused); Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva.

What the court decided

• Set aside the High Court's directions to the trial court regarding the grant of regular bail and its specific conditions.
• Confirmed the High Court's rejection of the respondents' prayer for anticipatory bail.
• Set aside the order dated 30.01.2026 by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rayagada, which granted bail to the respondents.
• Ordered the respondents to surrender within two weeks.
• Discharged the bail bonds and sureties furnished by the respondents.
• Dismissed the connected Special Leave Petitions filed by the respondents as an abuse of process.

Also in the document

• The Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by usurping the trial court's discretion to adjudicate regular bail applications.
• The Court characterized the respondents' attempt to challenge the High Court's opinion on anticipatory bail, after having already benefited from the regular bail granted under that same order, as an abuse of process.