Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2025:
The Supreme Court has reiterated that High Courts should not directly entertain anticipatory bail applications without requiring litigants to first approach the Sessions Court.
The case involved the murder of a health worker in Patna, allegedly by contract killers hired at the behest of moneylenders demanding repayment at exorbitant interest rates. Despite the serious allegations, the Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused without cogent reasoning or even impleading the complainant.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the High Court’s order, observing that the grant of bail was mechanical and contrary to judicial discipline.
The Court expressed concern over the haste shown by the High Court and emphasized that while Section 438 of the CrPC (now BNSS) provides concurrent jurisdiction to both courts, the Sessions Court should ordinarily be approached first.
The Supreme Court explained that this approach ensures:
- Two-tier scrutiny of bail pleas, enhancing judicial fairness.
- The High Court benefits from the Sessions Court’s reasoning.
- The complainant gets a fair opportunity to contest the plea.
The ruling follows similar concerns raised earlier, including the Supreme Court’s notice to the Kerala High Court for entertaining bail applications directly.
It also refers to the precedent in Gauhati High Court Bar Association v. State of Assam (2023), where the Court considered whether High Courts can decline to entertain anticipatory bail applications unless first filed before Sessions Courts.
✅ Held: High Courts should discourage direct filing of anticipatory bail applications and ensure judicial discipline by promoting the Sessions Court as the first forum.
