In State of UP & Anr V Mohd Archad Khan & Anr [ 2025 INSC 1480], the Supreme Court of India directed that High Courts should not grant “no arrest” or “no coercive steps” protection while simultaneously declining to quash a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The Court adds that such a practice effectively grants backdoor anticipatory bail without proper procedure, undermining the law and investigation. Therefore the accused must first seek anticipatory bail from the appropriate trial/sessions court if they fear arrest.
The Reasons Why HCs Cannot Grant No Arrest Protection
Issuing “no arrest” orders while refusing to quash an FIR allows accused persons avoids the scrutiny required for anticipatory bail (Section 438 CrPC) at the initial stage.
It is an act of judicial overreach and an attempt to circumvent established legal procedures, blurring lines between quashing petitions (inherent powers) and bail applications.
It paralyzes the investigation by preventing police from taking lawful action, violating the principle that liberty should not shield investigation.
The Precedent SC Relied on
The Supreme Court emphasized following established precedents like Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) which states that High Courts must not issue such directions while dismissing quashing pleas.
What Should Happen Instead
- Application for Bail: If an accused fears arrest after an FIR is lodged (and not quashed), they should apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.
- Approach Sessions Court First: Typically, the first application for anticipatory bail should be made to the Sessions Court, not directly to the High Court.
- Investigation Proceeds: The police are then free to investigate the FIR according to the law.
Conclusion
In essence, if a High Court decides an FIR shouldn’t be quashed, it shouldn’t shield the accused from arrest, Instead the accused must follow the standard bail procedure.
