Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in First-of-its-Kind BNS and Anti-Conversion Law Case; Upholds 'Cooperation with Investigation' as Decisive Factor.


17 October 2025 Anticipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India, on October 17, 2025, passed an important order in Rajesh Sharma v. The State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 4561/2025), granting anticipatory bail to the appellant, Rajesh Sharma, in a case dealing with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the Chhattisgarh Religion Act against Conversion, 1968.

The Bench, which included the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih, granted the relief, setting aside the impugned judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court that had previously turned down the prayer of the appellant for pre-arrest bail.

 

 

Key Statutory Context of the Allegations:

The accused appellant is in FIR No. 0078 of 2025, Police Station Amanaka, Raipur. The offences are a combination of the newly created BNS, 2023 and the presently prevailing State anti-conversion laws. The sections which have been invoked are:
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: Sections 298, 299, 296, 115(2), and 351(2).
  • Chhattisgarh Religion Act against Conversion, 1968: Section 4.
The BNS, which has just replaced the Indian Penal Code, is highlighted by the modernity of the legal challenge in the interpretation of the new provisions in regard to offences against public tranquility and attempts to commit offences.

Judicial Reasoning for Granting Bail:

Following submissions by both the learned counsel for the appellant and the State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court's grant of bail was founded mainly on one unchallenged fact:
Cooperation with Investigation: The Court expressed in clear words that "It is not in dispute that the appellant has joined investigation in terms of the earlier order of this Court."
In view of this cooperation and after perusing "the materials on record," the Bench decided that the appeal had to be accepted and the appellant would be entitled to an order for release on bail pending arrest.

Directions and Safeguards:

By keeping aside the High Court's directive, the Supreme Court introduced certain conditions to secure the sanctity of the judicial process:
  • Release Conditions: If the appellant is arrested, he will be released on bail on such terms and conditions as shall be determined by the Trial Court. This leaves it to the court of trial to decide the particular monetary and procedural terms.
  • No Tampering: The appellant is specifically instructed not to, directly or indirectly, discourage any person familiar with the facts of the case from revealing those facts to the court or the police, highlighting the fundamental anti-tampering requirement in all orders of bail.
  • Compulsory Cooperation: The appellant will be required to join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer (IO). Failing to do so gives the IO the freedom to seek before the trial court apt orders, which may result in canceling the bail.
  • No Impact on Merits: The Court was also keen to state that the grant of bail will not be accorded the status of findings of the merits of the case in order to protect the right of the prosecution to present evidence during the trial.
The last order reaffirms the judicial stance that cooperation with the investigating agency is still a determining consideration in the grant of pre-arrest freedom, even where serious offenses under specialized State and new Central criminal legislation are involved.