1. Anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — High Court's refusal to exercise jurisdiction without prior approach to Sessions Court. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1691
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Manjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3425 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 11667 of 2025) With Criminal Appeal No. 3426 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 11679 of 2025)
Decided On : 07-08-2025
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail – High Court exercises concurrent jurisdiction along with Sessions Court insofar as grant of anticipatory bail, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is concerned.
Anticipatory bail – High Court exercises concurrent jurisdiction along with Sessions Court insofar as grant of anticipatory bail, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is concerned.
Subject
Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 482 – Anticipatory bail – Jurisdiction to grant – High Court exercises concurrent jurisdiction along with Sessions Court insofar as grant of anticipatory bail, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is concerned – High Court ought to have applied its mind to determine as to whether cases on hand warranted exercise of jurisdiction by it in first instance without relegating accused to Sessions Court – As High Court failed to undertake such exercise, impugned orders set aside and matters remitted to High Court for consideration of bail applications afresh on facts and in accordance with law. (Paras 1 and 5)
Facts of the case:
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.
Findings of Court:
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.
Result : Appeals disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shyam Manohar, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shyam Manohar, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether an accused must approach the Sessions Court as a rule before seeking anticipatory bail from the High Court. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. High Court and Sessions Court exercise concurrent jurisdiction for anticipatory bail; the High Court must assess if special circumstances justify direct invocation of its jurisdiction. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 )
4. Accused persons are not required to approach the Sessions Court in the first instance before the High Court for anticipatory bail, subject to special circumstances. (Para 3 , 5 )
5. Impugned orders set aside and matters remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of bail applications. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
6. Is it mandatory for an accused to approach the Sessions Court before applying for anticipatory bail in the High Court?
No, it is not a rule that an accused must approach the Sessions Court in the first instance, as the High Court exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the Sessions Court for the grant of anticipatory bail. (Para 2 , 3 )
7. How does the High Court determine whether to exercise its jurisdiction directly in anticipatory bail matters?
The concerned Judge must assess the facts of each particular case to determine whether special circumstances exist and are duly established that warrant the jurisdiction of the High Court being invoked directly. (Para 5 , 6 )
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) and (iii) in the negative and hold that Vinod Kumar does not merit any reconsideration or further explanation. 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.”
xxx xxx xxx
6. In the light of the aforestated legal position, the High Court ought to have applied its mind to determine as to whether the cases on hand warranted exercise of jurisdiction by it in the first instance without relegating the accused to the Sessions 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.
7. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, considering the fact that this is the second round.
8. The appeals are disposed of in the aforestated terms.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
