Delay in Prosecution Sanction Cannot Curtail Citizen's Liberty, Supreme Court Grants Bail

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu held that an accused cannot remain in custody because the sanctioning authority failed to act on a charge-sheet filed months earlier.

The Supreme Court on 17 July 2026 granted bail to Ravinder Mehta, an accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, after finding that the sanctioning authority had not granted prosecution sanction despite a charge-sheet being filed nearly five months earlier. Setting aside the Allahabad High Court's refusal to grant regular bail, a division bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that the delay in grant of sanction to prosecute cannot be used to the disadvantage of a citizen for curtailing his liberty. The Court expressed surprise that the sanctioning authority had not acted and found continued custody unnecessary in those circumstances.

How the Case Reached the Supreme Court

Mehta was arrested on 9 December 2025, the same day FIR No.0231 of 2025 was registered at Police Station Adarsh Mandi, District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The investigation concluded and a charge-sheet was filed on 7 February 2026. The prosecution indicated it intended to examine 19 witnesses. Mehta then applied for regular bail before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By its judgment and order dated 20 March 2026 in CRMBA No.5778/2026, the High Court rejected the application.

Mehta approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. Leave was granted and the matter was taken up as a criminal appeal.

The Sanction Gap That Changed the Outcome

At the hearing, the Court identified a critical fact: although the charge-sheet had been filed, the trial court could not take cognizance of the offence because sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act had not yet been granted.

The bench enquired from counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh whether sanction had been granted. No clear answer was furnished. The Court proceeded on the basis that sanction remained pending.

Given that the charge-sheet had been on file since 7 February 2026, the Court said it was “surprised that the sanctioning authority is yet to activate itself.” Without sanction, the trial could not commence, and the conclusion of proceedings — which would involve 19 witnesses — was in any case likely to take time even once it did.

The Court's Reasoning on Liberty

The bench took an overall view of the matter and found that further detention in custody was unnecessary. The central principle it applied was direct: the state's own failure to move the sanction process along could not be converted into a reason to keep the accused behind bars.

Senior counsel Siddharth Dave argued on behalf of Mehta that this was an appropriate case for bail pending trial. The Court agreed, set aside the High Court's order, and granted bail.

Conditions Imposed

The Court directed that Mehta be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court and any additional terms the trial court may impose. It also directed that:

• Mehta shall not, directly or indirectly, induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case to withhold information from the court.
• Mehta shall diligently attend trial proceedings unless exempted. Unjustified absence may itself constitute a breach of bail conditions.
• Any breach of the conditions shall entitle the trial court to cancel bail.

The Court clarified that the observations in the order and the grant of bail are not to be treated as findings on the merits of the case.

Order

The appeal was allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated 20 March 2026 was set aside. Mehta is to be released on bail on the terms set out by the Supreme Court. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.