Case at a Glance
Three accused in an excise and prohibition case filed for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS directly in the High Court, without first approaching the Sessions Court. Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao held that although the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction, the Supreme Court in Mohammed Rasal C v. State of Kerala and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar has said such petitions should ordinarily go first to the Sessions Court, with direct High Court access reserved for special or extraordinary circumstances. As none were shown, the Court declined to decide the bail plea, gave the petitioners two weeks to approach the Sessions Judge, and barred their arrest until that court decides.
The petitioners are Accused Nos. 3 to 5 in a case registered at the Prohibition and Excise police station, Vuyyuru, Krishna district, under Sections 34(a) read with 34(1)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and Section 7 read with Section 8(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Fearing arrest, they filed a petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 directly in the High Court.
Their counsel told the Court that one of the petitioners was a candidate in the ZPTC elections scheduled for 5 November 2026 and feared arrest. The petitioners had not first approached the Sessions Court, which has concurrent jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail.
The Key Question Before the Court
Should the High Court entertain a pre-arrest bail petition under Section 482 BNSS directly, when the petitioners have not first approached the Sessions Court?
Concurrent Jurisdiction, but Sessions Court First
The Court accepted that it has concurrent jurisdiction with the Sessions Court under Section 482 BNSS. But it relied on the Supreme Court’s order in Mohammed Rasal C v. State of Kerala (8 September 2025), which said that pre-arrest bail applications should generally be moved first before the Sessions Court, with direct access to the High Court reserved for special or extraordinary circumstances. It also relied on Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court stressed that the High Court should encourage parties to exhaust the concurrent remedy before the Sessions Court and should record reasons if it grants bail directly.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the petitioners had not shown any special case or extraordinary circumstance for bypassing the Sessions Court. It therefore declined to exercise its discretion to decide the bail plea itself. At the same time, it did not leave the petitioners unprotected: it granted them time to approach the Sessions Judge and restrained the Investigating Officer from arresting them until the Sessions Court decides, while making clear that the Sessions Judge must decide independently on merits.
What the Court Actually Held
- The High Court has concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS, but a pre-arrest bail petition should ordinarily be filed first in the Sessions Court.
- Direct approach to the High Court is justified only where special or extraordinary circumstances are shown; none were shown here.
- The petition was disposed of without a decision on bail, with liberty to the petitioners to file pre-arrest bail applications before the Sessions Judge within two weeks.
- Until the Sessions Court decides those applications, the Investigating Officer shall not arrest the petitioners; they must cooperate with the investigation, and the Sessions Judge is to decide on merits uninfluenced by this order.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It applies the Supreme Court’s ‘Sessions Court first’ approach to anticipatory bail under the new BNSS in Andhra Pradesh.
- Accused persons who rush to the High Court may lose time; the ordinary forum is the Sessions Court.
- The interim protection shows the Court balancing procedural discipline with the risk of arrest in the meantime.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Accused Persons
- File for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court first unless there is a genuinely special reason to go to the High Court.
- If you approach the High Court directly, be ready to explain the extraordinary circumstances.
- Cooperate with the investigation while interim protection is in force.
For Counsel
- Plead and show specific special or extraordinary circumstances if moving the High Court directly.
- Cite Mohammed Rasal C and Jagdeo Prasad when arguing about the proper forum.
- Where the High Court relegates the matter, seek interim protection until the Sessions Court decides, as was granted here.
Key Takeaways
- The Sessions Court is the first stop for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS.
- The High Court’s concurrent jurisdiction is used directly only in special or extraordinary circumstances.
- The petitioners got two weeks to approach the Sessions Judge and protection from arrest till then.
- The Sessions Judge must decide the bail plea independently on merits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I file for anticipatory bail directly in the High Court?
The High Court has concurrent jurisdiction, but according to this ruling, following the Supreme Court, a petition should ordinarily be filed first in the Sessions Court unless special or extraordinary circumstances exist.
What happened to the petitioners in this case?
The Court did not decide their bail plea. It allowed them to approach the Sessions Judge within two weeks and directed that they not be arrested until the Sessions Court decides.
Which Supreme Court rulings did the Court follow?
It relied on Mohammed Rasal C v. State of Kerala and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar.
Conclusion
The order is a short but useful application of the Supreme Court’s guidance on the forum for anticipatory bail. The High Court’s door is not closed, but it opens directly only for special cases; otherwise, the Sessions Court must be approached first.
Practical takeaway: Begin an anticipatory bail application in the Sessions Court, and reserve a direct High Court petition for cases where you can show genuinely extraordinary circumstances.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com