The Supreme Court bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta has expressed its concern over the manner in which High Courts directly entertain applications for anticipatory bail, cautioning that judicial discipline requires such pleas to be first considered by the Sessions Court.

Emphasising that the concurrent jurisdiction under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(BNSS) must be exercised with restraint, while also stressing on the fact that the High Court should encourage to exhaust an alternative/concurrent remedy before taking matters in their own hands.

Background:

Such concern stems from the Court’s decision to set aside anticipatory bail orders granted by the Patna High Court in connection with a daylight murder case. The case arose from the killing of a health worker, allegedly orchestrated through hired contract killers at the behest of Accused persons engaged in an extortion racket by lending money at exorbitant interest rates.

Despite the gravity of the charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, the High Court had granted anticipatory bail to the accused, relying on arguments of clean antecedents and improbability of extortion.

The bench found that the High Court’s reasoning lacked cogency and failed to appreciate the seriousness of the accusations. Stressing that while protection of individual liberty is vital, the courts must not overlook the rights of victims.

The bench held that anticipatory bail was wholly unwarranted in such circumstances. The Court also criticised the failure to implead the complainant before passing the bail order, terming it procedurally unjust.

Most significantly, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the haste with which the High Court intervened. It observed that, “However, before parting, we do wish to express our sincere concern with the haste at which the High Court has dealt with this matter. While the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court and Sessions Court for entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, this Court has time and again observed that High Court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly interfering itself.”

The bench emphasised that such a layered scrutiny balances the interests of all the stakeholders by primarily giving the aggrieved party a round of challenge before the High Court and furthermore, provides the High Court an opportunity to assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions Court, in concurrent jurisdiction, instead of independently applying its mind from the first go.

Ultimately, the bench noting the serious nature of the allegations against accused-respondents and the gravity of the offences alleged, the Court directed the Accused respondents to surrender within four weeks and apply for regular bail.

Case Title: Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar., Crl.A. No. 4081 / 2025

Advocates For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Harsh Tomar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Aditya Sharma, Adv

Advocates For Respondent(s) :Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Ms. Ekta Kundu, Adv. Mr. Tejasvi Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shashank Manish, AOR Ms. Nidhi Sahay, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Raj, Adv. Ms. Pragati Singh, Adv. Mr. Ritansh Kumar Nand, Adv. Mr. Shubham Ranjan, Adv.