Supreme Court Refers Issue of Direct Filing of Anticipatory Bail Pleas to Three-Judge Bench

The Supreme Court on Wednesday referred to a three-judge bench the issue of whether High Courts can directly entertain anticipatory bail applications filed without first approaching the Sessions Courts.

A two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta ordered that the matter be placed before a three-judge bench.

Background of the Case

It was in September that the present bench took up this issue in the case Mohammed Rasal C v State of Kerala after expressing disapproval of the practice of the Kerala High Court to directly entertain anticipatory bail matters. The Court expressed the view that though Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Courts and Sessions Courts, applications for anticipatory bail should ordinarily be moved first before the Sessions Court, and that direct recourse to the High Court should be reserved for exceptional cases.

Appointment of Amicus Curiae and Report

The bench also appointed Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra as an amicus curiae for assistance. Last month, the amicus curiae submitted his report, opining that High Courts should directly hear anticipatory bail applications only in four exceptional circumstances.

Hearing and Submissions

Today, Luthra suggested that the matter be placed before a three-judge bench. He also informed that the Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) has filed a petition to implead themselves in the matter. Senior Advocates S. Nagamuthu and V. Giri represented the KHCAA.

Court’s Direction

The bench adjourned the matter directing that it be placed before a three-judge bench. "This matter requires to be heard by a three-judge bench combination. As and when the three judge bench is constituted, the matter may be listed," the bench observed in the order.

Case Title: Mohammed Rasal C & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr.