Prabha Bhandari vs Cental Bureau Of Investigation Thru. Cbi/Acb Lko.

After the exchange of affidavits, the applicant was granted short-term bail for a period of two months from the date of her release for the purpose of delivery of her child, vide order dated 14.07.2026. In pursuance of the said order, the applicant was released from jail on 22.07.2026, and on 14.08.2026, she gave birth to a male baby. However, in terms of the aforesaid bail order dated 14.07.2026, the applicant was required to surrender before the court concerned on 21.09.2026, but instead of surrendering, the applicant filed the present application seeking extension of the period of short-term bail for six months on the ground that she is a lactating mother and her baby is suffering from Vitamin-D deficiency, who was born prematurely. It is also stated in the application that the husband of the applicant is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army and is posted at Gurez, Bandipora, Jammu and Kashmir.

Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the decision of this Court passed in Bail No. 4228 of 2014 (Babu Salam vs. State of U.P.) wherein short-term bail was granted on 10.07.2014 and subsequently extended for a further period of 15 days vide order dated 07.08.2014. He also places reliance on the decision of this Court passed in the case of Baldev Raj Arora vs. CBI, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine All 20629.

Further, reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for the applicant on the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by this Court in Bail No. 9308 of 2018 (Mohd. Yusuf Ansari Vs. State of U.P.), wherein an application seeking extension of short-term bail was allowed in the decided bail application. He further relied upon the orders dated 11.01.2019 and 06.03.2019 passed by this Court in Bail No. 10920 of 2018 (Vikram Kothari vs. State through CBI), and the orders dated 27.09.2024, 14.11.2024, 07.01.2025, and 09.01.2025 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 4875 of 2023 (Atif Raza Vs. Directorate of Enforcement).

It is also submitted that the rider u/s 362 Cr.P.C. is not applicable, in case, the bail is extended by allowing this application. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, learned counsel for the applicant requests that the present application may be allowed and the applicant's short-term bail may be extended for a further period of six months.

It is further submitted that the applicant filed the present application, i.e., I.A./3/2026, in the decided Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3069 of 2026, seeking extension of the short-term bail granted by this Court vide order dated 14.07.2026 for a further period of six months on the ground of health conditions of her newborn baby.

Learned Special Counsel for the C.B.I., while drawing the attention of the Court to Section 483 BNSS/439 CrPC, read with Rule 18(4) of Chapter XVIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, submits that successive bail application is permissible in law, but an application seeking extension of bail in a decided bail application is not permissible, as the Court becomes functus officio after the final disposal of the bail application under Section 483 BNSS/439 CrPC.

In support of his submissions, learned Special Counsel for the C.B.I. relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh Mann vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 169. He also relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Vivek Yadav and Another vs. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1224 of 2023, wherein it has been held that appropriate remedy available is to file a fresh bail application.

Learned Special Counsel for the C.B.I. also submits that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has shifted his stand on various defense viz., the fresh bail application is not maintainable, as the applicant is not in custody and she can apply for fresh bail only after surrendering to the court concerned.

Learned Special Counsel next submits that the expression 'custody', as contemplated under Section 483 BNSS/439 CrPC, has already been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Niranjan Singh and Others vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others reported in MANU/SC/0182/1980, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person shall be treated in custody when he/she may be in constructive custody of court even if not in physical custody. Therefore, a fresh bail application would be maintainable, and the present application seeking an extension of bail is clear abuse of legal provisions.

Learned Special Counsel for the C.B.I. next submits that Rule 18 of Chapter XVIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules has already been interpreted by this Court in the case of Chinta Mani Tripathi vs. State of U.P., reported in MANU/UP/0324/1990. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court clarified the word "entertained" and made it clear that the rule cannot be a bar to a bail application being presented to this Hon'ble Court.

It is vehemently submitted that the provisions of Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, particularly Rule 18(4), read with Section 483 of the BNSS/Section 439 of the CrPC, were not considered in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant.

Learned Special Counsel for the C.B.I. also draws the attention of the Court to the judgment of this Court in the case of Pradeep Shukla vs. CBI, reported in 2014 SCC OnLine All 14964, wherein an identical controversy was considered and decided with the observation that in a decided bail application, the application for extension of bail is not permissible, when the applicant had the opportunity to file a fresh bail application on fresh ground in accordance with Rule 18(4) of the Allahabad High Court Rules.

Learned Special Counsel submits that a fresh short-term bail application filed by the applicant was also placed before the Registry on 23.09.2026. However, the Registry made a note that there is no provision for filing a short-term bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS/Section 439 of the CrPC, as an application seeking short-term bail is already pending, but the same is not being placed before the Court. Another objection was raised by the Registry to the effect that as the applicant was no longer in jail, a Vakalatnama was required to be filed instead of a memo of appearance. Thereafter, due to defect, the said bail application was taken back. The applicant filed another bail application, captioned as the second application for short-term bail, seeking interim relief by way of short-term bail, which is registered as Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 8675 of 2026.

It is next submitted that Rule 7 of Chapter II of the Allahabad High Court Rules clearly specifies that the powers of the Registry do not affect the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court, acting on the judicial side.

Learned Special Counsel, lastly relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Surendran vs. State, reported in MANU/SC/0486/2019, submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that maintainability is a matter for judicial determination and cannot be decided by a High Court's Registry. Therefore, the applicant, having failed to pursue the bail application before the Registry, was entitled to seek appropriate relief by filing a fresh bail application, not by moving an application for extension of the bail in the decided bail application. It is, thus, submitted that extension of short-term bail application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

However, once the bail application has been decided by granting bail to the accused, whether for a specified period or by way of granting regular bail, the Court becomes functus officio. This controversy has also been decided by this Court in the case of Pradeep Shukla vs. CBI (supra).

The other legal issue arising for consideration before this Court is whether the Registry can prohibit to file a bail application in place of sending it to the Court, raising objection of maintainability. This issue has already been addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Surendran vs. State (supra), wherein it has been held that the maintainability is a matter for judicial determination and cannot be decided by the Registry of the High Court. Therefore, the Registry committed an error in not placing the bail application filed by the applicant before the Court, which was filed in the Registry on 21.09.2026.

Accordingly, the Registrar General of this Court is directed to ensure that after pointing out the defects, records must be placed before the appropriate Court for decision on its maintainability, if any, on the judicial side, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Surendran vs. State (supra).

Apparently, in the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, seeking extension of the bail application, neither Rule 18(4) of the Allahabad High Court Rules nor the law laid down by this Court in the case of Pradeep Shukla vs. CBI (supra), has been considered.