Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Senior Advocate With Ms. Divya Bhagwan, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Retainer counsel
Mr. S.P. Jain, Senior Advocate With Ms. Meghna Malik, Advocate
Mr. Gagandeep Jammu, Advocate

Key Points: - The High Court may entertain direct bail pleas in exceptional circumstances, even though Sessions Court is the preferred forum. (!) (!) - Section 439 Cr.P.C./Section 483 BNSS provides concurrent jurisdiction for bail before High Court and Sessions Court; ordinarily the Sessions Court should be approached first unless exceptional circumstances exist. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment discusses criteria and flexibility around "exceptional circumstances" and emphasizes case-by-case assessment rather than a fixed checklist. (!) (!) - It cites that direct approach to the High Court is warranted where delay, complexity, or co-accused circumstances justify bypassing the Sessions Court, as evidenced by the present case’s peculiar facts. (!) (!) - Prior judicial opinions from various courts articulate that concurrent jurisdiction exists and that a litigant generally should exhaust the lower forum, with exceptions. (!) (!) (!) - The decision reiterates the protective purpose of bail and the standard that regular bail should balance liberty with ensuring presence at trial. (!) (!) - The order ultimately allows bail with conditions, clarifying that entertainment of the petition is due to the peculiar factual matrix. (!) (!)

How to approach bail applications in the High Court direct vs. Sessions Court for regular bail under Cr.P.C./BNSS?

What is the concept of "exceptional circumstances" for direct High Court bail without prior Sessions Court intervention?

What are the factors and principles governing concurrent jurisdiction of High Court and Sessions Court in granting regular bail?