Custody after filing of chargesheet has no legal justification. Reaffirming this settled principle, the Supreme Court of India has directed that accused persons must be released on bail upon their appearance before the trial court when investigation is complete and chargesheet already stands filed.

Hearing a Special Leave Petition arising out of a cheating case linked with a corporate refund dispute, the Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran made it clear that arrest after filing of chargesheet serves no purpose unless custodial interrogation is required.

Supreme Court on Bail After Chargesheet

The petitioners, including Smt. Shalini Bhateja was facing prosecution in FIR No. 396 of 2025 registered at Police Station Tajganj, District Agra. The allegations related to cheating and wrongful refund of corporate funds.

After the filing of the chargesheet, the accused approached the Supreme Court seeking protection from arrest.

The Court recorded that the investigation was complete and Chargesheet No. 144 of 2025 had already been filed on September 11, 2025.

In such circumstances, the Bench observed that there is no reason for the accused to be taken into custody merely for the sake of formality.

This clear view strengthens the jurisprudence that arrest is not a mandatory consequence once investigation is concluded.

Background Leading to Supreme Court Intervention

Earlier, the accused had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground of mala fide and abuse of criminal process.

The High Court declined to quash the FIR but granted liberty to the accused to appear before the trial court and apply for bail.

Challenging this, the petitioners moved the Supreme Court, arguing that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and that multiple proceedings were initiated on the same set of facts.

Arguments Before the Court

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that three parallel proceedings were initiated across different forums over the same transaction, reflecting misuse of criminal law to exert pressure in a commercial dispute.

The complainant, represented by a Senior Advocate, argued that the case involved deliberate cheating and conspiracy, pointing out that the refund amount was allegedly credited to another account bearing a similar name.

It was also highlighted that insolvency proceedings were pending before the NCLT and an Interim Resolution Professional had been appointed.

Court’s Findings on Multiple Proceedings

The Supreme Court took note of the following parallel actions

• A complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
• An earlier application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, which was later withdrawn after police reported the dispute to be civil
• The present FIR from Police Station Tajganj, Agra

The Court recorded consensus between the parties that parallel proceedings need not continue and ordered closure of the Delhi complaint without prejudice to their rights.

Final Directions on Bail

While disposing of the petition, the Supreme Court categorically held that once the chargesheet has been filed, custodial detention is unwarranted.

Key Directions Issued

• The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional trial court within one month
• On appearance, they shall be granted bail on the same day
• The trial court shall fix bail conditions
• Charges shall be read over on the date of appearance
• The accused shall cooperate in early disposal of the trial
• The complainant may act through the Interim Resolution Professional

The Court also clarified that the IRP is entitled to seek summoning of former directors or officials having knowledge of the transaction.

Case Details

• Case Title: Smt. Shalini Bhateja and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
• Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11375 of 2025
• Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 28
• Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
• Counsel for Petitioners: Advocate Ashish Pandey
• Counsel for Respondents: Senior Advocate Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad

Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…