Court’s decision
The High Court of Kerala dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, holding that the applicant had directly approached the High Court without first seeking relief before the Sessions Court. The Court emphasized that in the absence of exceptional circumstances, it cannot entertain such petitions. Relying on a recent authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the Court held that “no person seeking pre-arrest bail should be encouraged to bypass the Sessions Court.” The application was rejected with liberty to approach the Sessions Court for appropriate relief in accordance with law.
Facts
The petitioner was accused in a crime registered by the Crime Branch relating to alleged irregularities in the entrustment and refixation of gold-cladded temple artefacts, including Dwarapalakas and Peedam. The incident dated back to 2019, and the investigation was being conducted by a Special Investigation Team. Concerned about potential arrest, the petitioner filed an anticipatory bail application directly before the High Court under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023. The petitioner did not disclose any specific or extraordinary circumstance preventing her from approaching the Sessions Court. Instead, she sought protection from arrest solely based on her apprehension of custodial interrogation.
Issues
The central issue before the Court was whether an accused could directly seek anticipatory bail before the High Court without first approaching the Sessions Court when no exceptional circumstances existed. The Court also considered whether the petitioner’s factual pleas or her medical condition constituted grounds significant enough to justify bypassing the hierarchy of courts. An ancillary issue was whether Section 482 of BNSS, which corresponds to the former Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, allowed the High Court to entertain such direct applications as a matter of course.
Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner argued that the nature of the allegations and the ongoing investigation created a genuine apprehension of arrest, justifying invocation of the High Court’s jurisdiction. She emphasised her medical history, including kidney transplant and ongoing treatment, supported by medical certificates and radiology reports annexed to the application. According to her, the special facts of her case required immediate protection, and presenting herself before the Sessions Court could entail risk of arrest before her plea was considered. She therefore urged the High Court to exercise its concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of BNSS to grant anticipatory bail in the interest of justice.
Respondent’s arguments
The State opposed the petition and submitted that the High Court should not entertain the application because the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any exceptional condition warranting deviation from statutory hierarchy. The State relied on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court holding that direct petitions before the High Court for pre-arrest bail must not be entertained lightly. It was argued that the petitioner could have safely approached the Sessions Court, which possesses concurrent jurisdiction and is ordinarily the first forum for such relief. The State maintained that medical documents alone cannot justify bypassing this hierarchy. Accordingly, the bail application deserved rejection.
Analysis of the law
The Court examined Section 482 of BNSS in light of established principles governing anticipatory bail. While both the Sessions Court and the High Court possess concurrent powers, judicial discipline and statutory intent favour an accused approaching the Sessions Court first. The Court emphasised that this structure ensures streamlined consideration of bail matters, proper fact-finding, and prevents the High Court from being converted into a court of first instance for routine applications. The Court found that the petitioner had not pleaded any unique circumstance such as imminent arrest despite cooperation, mala fide police action, or denial of legal remedy before the Sessions Court. Thus, jurisdictional hierarchy could not be overridden.
Precedent analysis
The judgment relied significantly on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohammed Rasal C v. State of Kerala (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 6588/2025). The Apex Court had held that although concurrent jurisdiction exists, the hierarchy of courts demands disciplined adherence. The Supreme Court clarified that citizens must not be encouraged to directly invoke High Court jurisdiction for anticipatory bail without first exhausting remedies before the Sessions Court. It also reiterated that Section 482 of BNSS, previously Section 438 CrPC, must not dilute this procedural discipline. The High Court applied this precedent squarely, noting that its factual and legal matrix mirrored the present case.
Court’s reasoning
The Court reasoned that mere apprehension of arrest or existence of a medical condition cannot justify bypassing the Sessions Court. It observed that the Supreme Court’s pronouncement leaves no scope for discretionary relaxation unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Court highlighted that direct petitions weaken the orderly functioning of criminal courts and undermine the purpose of concurrent jurisdiction. The petitioner’s failure to offer any explanation for not approaching the Sessions Court rendered her application legally unsustainable. The High Court was therefore bound by binding precedent to refuse interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, while protecting the petitioner’s liberty to pursue her remedy before the appropriate forum.
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that direct invocation of its jurisdiction for pre-arrest bail without showing special circumstances was impermissible. Applying the Supreme Court’s binding interpretation of Section 482 BNSS, the Court held that the petitioner must file for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. The bail application was rejected, but liberty was granted to approach the Sessions Court, where the matter may be considered on its merits. This decision reaffirms the structural discipline governing bail jurisprudence and reinforces the procedural hierarchy that governs anticipatory bail practice in India.
Implications
This ruling strengthens the principle that anticipatory bail petitions must ordinarily originate before the Sessions Court. It sends a clear message that High Courts will not entertain such applications unless exceptional, compelling, and clearly pleaded circumstances exist. The decision also clarifies that medical conditions or general apprehensions of arrest are insufficient to bypass procedural hierarchy. It further signals that the High Court will strictly apply Supreme Court precedents to ensure consistent bail jurisprudence under the BNSS framework. Practitioners must therefore adhere to the structured pathway for pre-arrest bail.
