CourtKutchehry

Supreme Court anticipatory bail ruling 2025 Supreme Court Rules: Anticipatory Bail Pleas Must First Go to Sessions Court, Not Directly to High Courts

SC sets aside Patna High Court order granting bail in contract killing case; stresses judicial discipline and two-tier scrutiny

Judges say bypassing Sessions Court undermines fairness, complainant’s rights, and proper judicial process

By Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: October 02, 2025:

In a significant ruling with wide implications for criminal law practice, the Supreme Court of India has directed that anticipatory bail applications should ordinarily be filed first before the Sessions Court, rather than being directly entertained by High Courts. The judgment came while overturning a Patna High Court order that had granted anticipatory bail to two accused in a contract killing case.

The apex court emphasized that while both the High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), judicial discipline and fairness demand that litigants first approach the Sessions Court.

The Case Background

The case arose from the murder of a health worker in Bihar in December 2023. The victim, employed at a Primary Health Centre, was shot dead in broad daylight by hired assassins. According to the complainant, the accused were moneylenders charging exorbitant interest rates of up to 35% per month. When the victim could not repay, she was allegedly eliminated through contract killers.

The accused, fearing arrest, directly approached the Patna High Court for anticipatory bail. On March 12, 2024, the High Court granted them relief, citing their “clean antecedents” and suggesting that the complainant had falsely implicated them.

The complainant challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had ignored the gravity of the offence and failed to even implead him as a party before granting bail.

Supreme Court’s Observations

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the High Court’s order, calling it a “miscarriage of justice.”

Key observations included:

Gravity of Offence Ignored: The High Court overlooked the fact that the murder was committed in broad daylight, with hired killers, and against a backdrop of extortion.
Lack of Reasoning: The anticipatory bail was granted without cogent reasoning or proper consideration of evidence.
Bypassing Sessions Court: The High Court should have directed the accused to first approach the Sessions Court.

The Supreme Court stressed that anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief and must be exercised cautiously, especially in heinous crimes.

Why Sessions Court First?

The Court explained why anticipatory bail pleas should ordinarily begin at the Sessions Court:

Two-Tier Scrutiny: It allows the High Court to later review the Sessions Court’s reasoning, ensuring a more balanced decision.
Accessibility of Records: Sessions Judges have immediate access to case diaries and local prosecutors, enabling better fact-based decisions.
Fairness to Complainants: It gives complainants a chance to contest bail at the Sessions level before the matter escalates.
Judicial Discipline: Respecting the hierarchy of courts prevents misuse of concurrent jurisdiction.

The Court clarified that while High Courts do have concurrent powers, direct filing should be discouraged except in exceptional cases.

The Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Patna High Court’s order, and directed the accused to surrender within four weeks and apply for regular bail.

The ruling also serves as a guideline for all High Courts, cautioning them against entertaining anticipatory bail pleas at the first instance.

Wider Context: Kerala High Court Issue

This judgment comes shortly after the Supreme Court also questioned the Kerala High Court for entertaining direct anticipatory bail pleas without Sessions Court recourse. The apex court even sought a formal response from the Kerala High Court on whether such a practice was being followed systematically.

Legal experts note that this reflects the Supreme Court’s growing concern over procedural shortcuts that undermine judicial hierarchy.

Balancing Liberty and Justice

The Court acknowledged the delicate balance between protecting individual liberty and ensuring justice for victims. While anticipatory bail is meant to safeguard against arbitrary arrest, granting it casually in serious offences like murder risks eroding public confidence in the justice system.

Justice Nath observed that:

“A balance has to be struck to protect the liberty of the accused while also ensuring that victims and society do not live in fear of perpetrators.”

Legal Significance

This ruling is expected to have far-reaching consequences:

Uniform Practice: High Courts across India will now be expected to discourage direct filings.
Stronger Victim Rights: Complainants will have more opportunities to contest bail applications.
Reduced Forum Shopping: Litigants will not be able to bypass Sessions Courts for quicker relief.
Guidance for Lawyers: Advocates will need to advise clients to first approach Sessions Courts, except in rare cases.

Expert Reactions

Legal commentators have welcomed the judgment as a course correction. Senior advocates note that anticipatory bail, while a safeguard, has often been misused by influential accused to avoid scrutiny at the district level.

Others highlight that the ruling strengthens the principle of judicial hierarchy, ensuring that High Courts are not burdened with first-instance bail matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to set aside the Patna High Court’s anticipatory bail order and insist on Sessions Court scrutiny first is a landmark ruling. It reinforces judicial discipline, protects complainants’ rights, and ensures that anticipatory bail remains a carefully exercised remedy rather than a loophole.

For the family of the murdered health worker, the ruling is a step towards justice. For the legal system, it is a reminder that shortcuts in procedure can lead to miscarriages of justice.

SC: Anticipatory Bail Must First Be Filed in Sessions Court