The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated the principle that an accused seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) must first exhaust the remedy before the Sessions Court. The Court dismissed a petition filed directly before it, holding that the absence of extraordinary circumstances precluded the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, B Sateesh Kumar, a 57-year-old employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 127 of 2026 registered at Naidupet Urban Police Station, Tirupati District. The offences alleged against him were punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), and 336(3) of the BNSS. The petitioner contended that he was suffering from severe diabetes and sought pre-arrest bail directly from the High Court under Section 482 of the BNSS.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was accused in Crime No. 127/2026, registered on 02.05.2026
- The offences alleged were under Sections 318(4), 316(5), and 336(3) of the BNSS
- The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 of the BNSS without first approaching the Sessions Court
- The petitioner cited his health condition (severe diabetes) as a ground for seeking relief
Procedural History
- 02.05.2026: Crime No. 127/2026 registered at Naidupet Urban Police Station
- 22.06.2026: Criminal Petition No. 4437/2026 filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking anticipatory bail
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, urging the Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to grant relief in view of his medical condition.
The Legal Issue
The primary question before the Court was whether Section 482 of the BNSS permits an accused to directly invoke the High Court's jurisdiction for anticipatory bail without first exhausting the remedy before the Sessions Court, particularly in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's severe diabetes constituted a valid ground for the High Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS. The counsel urged the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in light of the petitioner's medical condition.
For the Respondent
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, relying on the precedents set by the Supreme Court in Mohammed Rasal C v. State of Kerala and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and others. The respondent argued that the petitioner had failed to establish any extraordinary circumstance justifying a direct approach to the High Court without first seeking relief before the Sessions Court.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legal framework governing anticipatory bail under the BNSS and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohammed Rasal C and Jagdeo Prasad. The Court observed that the BNSS provides concurrent jurisdiction to both the High Court and the Sessions Court for granting anticipatory bail. However, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the remedy before the Sessions Court should ordinarily be exhausted before invoking the High Court's jurisdiction.
"The Sessions Judge exercises powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C in relation to all cases registered with the police stations in the particular District. This area-wise distribution of work would make it much more convenient and facilitate expeditious disposal, if the application for pre-arrest bail is first filed before the Sessions Court which would have a direct and first-hand assistance of the concerned Public Prosecutor appointed for that particular District. The Sessions Court would also have an immediate access to the Case Diary thereby facilitating a better appreciation of facts of the case."
The Court further noted the Supreme Court's concern in Jagdeo Prasad regarding the haste with which High Courts entertain anticipatory bail applications without the accused first approaching the Sessions Court. The Court emphasized that such an approach balances the interests of all stakeholders by providing the aggrieved party an opportunity to challenge the Sessions Court's decision before the High Court. It also allows the High Court to assess the judicial perspective applied by the Sessions Court rather than independently applying its mind from the outset.
"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 Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish any extraordinary circumstance justifying a direct approach to the High Court. The medical condition cited by the petitioner did not constitute a valid ground for bypassing the Sessions Court. The Court reiterated that discretionary relief under Section 482 of the BNSS would only be granted in exceptional cases.
The Verdict
The Court dismissed Criminal Petition No. 4437 of 2026, holding that the petitioner had not exhausted the remedy before the Sessions Court and had failed to establish any extraordinary circumstance warranting the High Court's intervention. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court by filing an application for pre-arrest bail.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Exhaust Remedy Before Sessions Court First
- Practitioners must advise clients to first approach the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail before invoking the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS
- The High Court will only entertain anticipatory bail petitions directly in extraordinary circumstances, which must be clearly pleaded and established
Extraordinary Circumstances Must Be Pleaded
- Mere medical conditions, such as diabetes, may not suffice to justify a direct approach to the High Court
- The accused must demonstrate special or extraordinary circumstances that prevent them from approaching the Sessions Court first
- The High Court's discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS is not absolute and must be exercised judiciously
Balancing Stakeholder Interests
- The Supreme Court's rulings in Mohammed Rasal C and Jagdeo Prasad emphasize the need to balance the interests of the accused, the complainant, and the judicial system
- Directly approaching the High Court without exhausting the Sessions Court remedy may lead to dismissal, as seen in this case
- The Sessions Court's decision provides an additional layer of judicial scrutiny, which the High Court can review if necessary
