The Supreme Court has reiterated that it is not mandatory for an accused to first approach the Sessions Court before moving the High Court for anticipatory bail. Setting aside two orders passed by the Allahabad High Court, the apex court observed that the High Court failed to apply its mind on whether the cases warranted exercise of jurisdiction at the High Court level in the first instance.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria was hearing criminal appeals filed against the High Court’s orders passed in anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
While disposing of the appeals, the Supreme Court stated:
“The impugned orders reflect that the High Court did not take note of the fact that it exercises concurrent jurisdiction along with the Sessions Court insofar as grant of anticipatory bail… is concerned.”
The Court referred to its earlier rulings in Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju v. State of A.P. [(2021) 13 SCC 822] and Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 INSC 512], holding that:
“It would not be necessary for an accused to approach the Sessions Court in the first instance, as a rule, before approaching the High Court.”
The bench also noted that a five-judge larger bench of the High Court had recently clarified the position, stating that it is for the concerned judge to assess whether “special circumstances do exist in a particular case warranting the jurisdiction of the High Court being invoked directly.” It held:
“It would be for the concerned Judge to form an opinion in the facts of each particular case whether special circumstances do exist and stand duly established.”
In view of this, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court ought to have examined whether such special circumstances existed in the present cases. Since that exercise was not undertaken, the top court remitted the matters back to the High Court:
“As the High Court failed to undertake such exercise, we are constrained to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matters to the High Court for consideration of the bail applications afresh on facts and in accordance with law.”
The Court directed that the bail applications be reconsidered “as expeditiously as possible,” noting that this was already the second round of proceedings.
The appeals were disposed of in these terms, along with any pending applications.
