SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1691

SANJAY KUMAR, N. V. ANJARIA
Manjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shyam Manohar, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. 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, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is concerned.

3. This Court’s decisions in “Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju Vs. State of A.P”, (2021) 13 SCC 822 and “Arvind Kejriwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement”, 2024 INSC 512 : (2024) 5 Supreme 359 made this position clear and declared 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.

4. Further, we are informed that a larger Bench of the High Court, comprising five Judges, dealt with the issue as to in what circumstances an accused could seek anticipatory bail directly from the High Court.

5. The larger Bench answered the reference as follows:

    xxx xxx xxx

    “Question (i) and (iv) clearly do not merit any elucidation for 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. We answer Questions (ii) a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top