For a long time, Indian legal provisions regarding Bail has struggled to find equilibrium between protecting people’s freedom and meeting the needs of the criminal justice system. Even though Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution guarantee certain rights, court decisions before Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI left loopholes in making sure that arrest and bail procedures were the just and fair. Precedents like Arnesh Kumar case and Siddharth Case gave some guiding principles, but they didn’t have strong enforcement mechanism. This led to arbitrary arrests and inconsistent behaviour by judges when deciding bail. The judgement in Satender Kumar Antil’s case methodically categorizes offences and it mandates rigorous compliance with Sections 41 and 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code and requires principle-based judicial reasoning in bail applications. Using doctrinal research methodology, this paper examines provisions, Supreme Court decisions and Law Commission reports to show how this ruling changed the basis of decision from being discretion to being principles while adjudicating bail matters. It also points out the gaps that still exist and the need for laws to codify bail principles.