{"id":372695,"date":"2026-01-15T09:00:11","date_gmt":"2026-01-15T03:30:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=372695"},"modified":"2026-01-17T11:55:08","modified_gmt":"2026-01-17T06:25:08","slug":"sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/","title":{"rendered":"Sessions-First as a Rule, Not a Straitjacket – Calibrating High Court Access in Anticipatory Bail"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

When is it lawful and rational to approach the High Court directly for anticipatory bail?<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd. Rasal C.<\/span> v. State of Kerala<\/span><\/a>1<\/sup><\/a> marks a pivotal stage in the evolution of anticipatory bail jurisprudence under Section 438<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC<\/a>) now re-enacted as Section 482<\/a>, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a>. Concerned by the growing tendency of litigants to approach High Courts directly, the Bench reiterated that such applications should, as a rule, originate before the Court of Session. To clarify the limits of this concurrent jurisdiction, the Court appointed Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, assisted by Advocate G. Arudhra Rao, as Amicus Curiae.<\/p>\n

The amicus noted that while both forums possess equal statutory power, the Sessions Court was envisaged as the primary forum, with the High Court reserved for extraordinary or urgent cases. This interpretation, though doctrinally sound, often collides with ground level realities where procedural or structural constraints render the Sessions tier ineffective.<\/p>\n

The present paper revisits that understanding through two lenses — statutory design and judicial practice. Although Parliament deliberately conferred concurrent jurisdiction, litigants are effectively compelled to move the Sessions Court first even when that forum’s procedures fail to provide immediate protection. The practical outcome is a tension between the principle of judicial hierarchy and the constitutional demand for meaningful access to liberty.<\/p>\n

The central question, therefore, is straightforward yet significant: When is it lawful and rational to approach the High Court directly for anticipatory bail? The analysis argues that the Sessions-first rule should remain the ordinary route, but systemic departures — such as refusal of ad interim relief, rigid time-caps, or adjournments without protection — justify narrow, criteria-based exceptions permitting a High Court-first filing.<\/p>\n

To ground this claim, the discussion draws on precedent concerning three established aspects of anticipatory bail:<\/p>\n

1. the permissibility of ex parte or ad interim protection,<\/p>\n

2. the non-time bound nature of relief once granted, and<\/p>\n

3. the judicial duty of expedition.<\/p>\n

Each represents an area where appellate courts have repeatedly intervened to correct Sessions level practice. The subsequent sections trace how these doctrinal principles interact with on-ground frictions, leading to a pragmatic framework that reconciles hierarchy with effective access to justice.<\/p>\n

Doctrinal background<\/h2>\n

Objective and definition<\/p>\n

Neither the CrPC<\/a> nor its predecessors formally define “bail”; they merely distinguish bailable from non-bailable offences.2<\/sup><\/a> The Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a>, however, adds clarity by describing bail3<\/sup><\/a> as the release of a person accused or suspected of an offence from legal custody on such terms as the court or officer considers reasonable. Judicial4<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/span> and lexical authorities explain it as the security that ensures an accused’s appearance during investigation or trial.5<\/sup><\/a> Constitutionally, the idea flows from Article 21’s<\/span> <\/span><\/span>protection of personal liberty and the maxim “bail, not jail”6<\/sup><\/a>. The objective is preventive, not punitive — to secure attendance, preserve cooperation, and ensure that restrictions imposed are proportionate to the risk of flight7<\/sup><\/a> or interference with evidence.8<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Anticipatory bail<\/p>\n

Anticipatory bail operates as a pre-arrest safeguard that shields personal liberty where custodial interrogation is unnecessary.9<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span> It directs that, if arrest occurs, the applicant shall be released on bail — a preventive remedy that activates only upon arrest. The right arises from a credible apprehension of arrest rather than from custody itself.10<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Judicial authority recognises that courts may extend ex parte or ad interim protection when delay would defeat the remedy, provided the prosecution is promptly notified and the matter listed for an early inter-party hearing.11<\/sup><\/a> Conditions attached to such orders — cooperation with investigation, non-tampering with evidence, disclosure of travel, and attendance as required — serve as risk-management tools calibrated to the facts of each case. The Courts are also expected to consider the applicant’s financial capacity and, where appropriate, permit release on personal bond12<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

As repeatedly affirmed in Sushila Aggarwal<\/span><\/a>13<\/sup><\/a> and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span><\/span><\/a>14<\/sup><\/a>, the protection ordinarily endures without fixed expiry unless “special reasons” justify limitation. Duration is supervised through modification or cancellation on supervening grounds, not by embedding arbitrary time-caps at inception. Together, these settled propositions define the doctrinal framework against which practice level deviations at the Sessions tier must be assessed.<\/p>\n

Concurrent jurisdiction<\/h2>\n

Historical position<\/p>\n

Section 482(1)<\/span><\/a>, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/span><\/a> (BNSS<\/span><\/a>) [corresponding to Section 438(1)<\/span><\/a> CrPC<\/span><\/a>] confers concurrent power on the High Court and the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail. Judicial convention, however, evolved to treat the Sessions Court as the normal forum and the High Court as an exceptional one.<\/p>\n

The Rajasthan High Court in Hajialisher<\/span> v.<\/span> State of Rajasthan<\/span><\/span><\/a>15<\/sup><\/a>, held that petitions should ordinarily begin before the Sessions Court to maintain the hierarchical order of criminal courts. By contrast, the Kerala High Court in Canara Bank<\/span><\/span> v.<\/span> State of Kerala<\/span><\/span><\/a>16<\/sup><\/a>, took a more liberal approach, ruling that an accused is not legally bound to first seek relief at the Sessions level and may move the High Court directly.<\/p>\n

Although the Supreme Court’s early observations were not conclusive, they implied that anticipatory bail petitions are best heard by the Court having territorial jurisdiction over the offence. This convention reinforced the Sessions-first practice while leaving the High Court’s concurrent authority intact. The result was a prudential rule of preference rather than a statutory restriction — a balance that later judgments and the case of Rasal C.<\/span><\/a>17<\/sup><\/a> proceedings sought to refine.<\/span><\/p>\n

Contemporary reaffirmation (the Kerala trigger and the Supreme Court’s call for structured carve-outs)<\/p>\n

The issue resurfaced in the case of Rasal C.<\/span><\/a>18<\/sup><\/a> where the Supreme Court voiced concern over High Courts entertaining anticipatory bail pleas directly without applicants first approaching the Sessions Court. To clarify the limits of concurrent jurisdiction, the Bench appointed Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, assisted by Advocate G. Arudhra Rao, as Amicus Curiae and invited the Kerala High Court to review its own practice.<\/span><\/p>\n

Despite this caution, the Kerala High Court in Venu Gopalakrishnan<\/span> v. State of Kerala<\/span><\/a>19<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span> reaffirmed that such petitions are maintainable directly before the High Court, relying on earlier State precedents. This divergence between the Supreme Court’s advisory tone and continuing State level practice highlights the absence of a uniform approach.<\/span><\/p>\n

The episode exposed a larger tension between judicial hierarchy and liberty centric access to remedies. It also prompted renewed debate on whether the Sessions-first convention should evolve into a codified framework of structured exceptions — a task the Amicus Curiae exercise in the case of Rasal C.<\/span><\/a>20<\/sup><\/a> sought to facilitate.<\/span><\/p>\n

Analysis of the report<\/h2>\n

Criteria proposed for the direct High Court access<\/p>\n

The amici’s report identified four situations in which direct recourse to the High Court may be justified:<\/p>\n

1. Extra-territorial risk — where the accused ordinarily resides outside the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction and apprehends arrest elsewhere.<\/p>\n

2. Local impediments — where law and order disturbances, strikes, or personal hostility render approach to the Sessions Court unsafe or impracticable.<\/p>\n

3. Medical or comparable emergency — where illness or similar constraint prevents timely appearance.<\/p>\n

5. Special or designated courts — where the “court of first jurisdiction” itself is a special or designated the Sessions rank court under a local or special law.<\/p>\n

These narrowly defined carve-outs balance access to justice with respect for judicial hierarchy, acknowledging Parliament’s intent to confer concurrent powers without eroding the Sessions-first principle.<\/p>\n

Critical observations and rationale<\/p>\n

The Amicus Curiae emphasised that the Court of Session should ordinarily remain the forum of first resort. Its proximity to the accused and lower procedural cost makes it the natural starting point for bail adjudication. The report warned that the growing trend of High Courts entertaining petitions at the threshold — particularly in Kerala, Odisha and Andhra Pradesh which risks overburdening higher courts and fostering doubts about Sessions level competence.<\/p>\n

Channelling applications through the Sessions tier, the report explained, creates a two-level safeguard: The accused receives an initial hearing below and, if needed, a review above. The analogy was drawn from the constitutional practice under Articles 32<\/a> and 226<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span>, where litigants are expected to approach the High Court before the Supreme Court despite concurrent jurisdiction.<\/span><\/p>\n

At the same time, the amicus cautioned that any judicial attempt to restrict or qualify Parliament’s concurrent design would verge on legislating from the Bench — an approach impermissible under the principle articulated in P. Ramachandra Rao<\/span> v.<\/span> State of Karnataka<\/span><\/span><\/a>21<\/sup><\/a>. The framework thus respects legislative intent while encouraging functional discipline within the hierarchy.<\/p>\n

Yet, its premise that Sessions Court uniformly apply doctrine remains contestable. As the following section shows, systemic frictions — denial of ad interim protection, arbitrary time-caps, and procedural delay — often erode the practical efficacy of the Sessions forum and justify a narrow, fact-based High Court first exception.<\/p>\n

Practice — doctrine gap: The three frictions<\/h2>\n

Notice to public prosecutor and the question of ex parte\/ad interim protection<\/p>\n

The Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia<\/span> v.<\/span> State of Punjab<\/span><\/span><\/a>22<\/sup><\/a> affirmed that courts may grant ex parte or ad interim protection where delay would make the remedy illusory, subject to prompt notice to the prosecution and an early inter-party hearing. Such temporary relief, anchored in Article 21, safeguards liberty rather than indulging procedure.<\/p>\n

In practice, however, many Sessions Court adjourn matters “for instructions” or list them routinely without interim protection, creating arrest windows that defeat the purpose of anticipatory bail. Higher courts have repeatedly deprecated this approach. In Shrenik Jayantilal Jain<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span><\/a>23<\/sup><\/a>, the Bombay High Court directed that where interim relief is refused, the application must not remain pending and any adjournment should be limited to two or three days. The Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal<\/span><\/a>24<\/sup><\/a> likewise cautioned against open-ended listings, holding that pendency without protection undermines personal liberty.<\/p>\n

From an access route perspective, these realities justify a narrowly defined High Court first exception where:<\/p>\n

1. a credible and imminent risk of arrest is shown; or<\/p>\n

2. the Sessions Court declines ad interim relief and fixes no date certain (or an unreasonably distant one); or<\/p>\n

3. local conditions render the Sessions forum effectively inaccessible.<\/p>\n

Duration of anticipatory bail (time-caps and charge-sheet cut-offs)<\/p>\n

The governing rule is settled: once anticipatory bail is granted, it ordinarily continues without fixed expiry. The filing of a charge-sheet, taking of cognizance, or issuance of summons does not terminate protection unless special reasons are recorded. The Constitution Bench in the case of Sushila Aggarwal<\/span><\/a>25<\/sup><\/a> held that duration is a matter of judicial discretion and cannot be confined by arbitrary timelines. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre<\/span><\/a>26<\/sup><\/a> similarly cautioned that anticipatory bail should not hinge on procedural milestones.<\/p>\n

Risk management is achieved through conditions of cooperation, attendance, and non-tampering, not by imposing calendar cut-offs. Where circumstances change, modification or cancellation may be sought under the Code, but expiry clauses inserted at inception are unsustainable.<\/p>\n

Despite this clarity, Sessions Court frequently restrict validity — sometimes to 60 days or till the filing of the charge-sheet. High Courts have consistently invalidated such curtailments. The Kerala High Court in Siby Mathews<\/span> v. State of Kerala<\/span><\/a>27<\/sup><\/a> struck down a 60-day limit as contrary to the Sushila Aggarwal case<\/span><\/span><\/a>28<\/sup><\/a>. Similar reasoning appears in Rajesh Pratap Giri<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span><\/a>29<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Accordingly, absent “special reasons recorded”, anticipatory bail orders should endure beyond procedural stages, and any termination must arise from express judicial finding, not automatic lapse.<\/p>\n

Expeditious hearing same day or date certain versus “in due course”<\/p>\n

Anticipatory bail applications engage the fundamental right to personal liberty and must be heard with expedition. The Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal case<\/span><\/a>30<\/sup><\/a> held that petitions should be decided promptly, and indefinite listings without interim protection defeat Article 21. In the case of Rajesh Seth<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>31<\/sup><\/a> reinforced that pendency without protection exposes an applicant to coercive action.<\/span><\/p>\n

In practice, Sessions Court often adjourn matters “in due course”, decline ad interim relief, or reserve orders for weeks, leaving the accused vulnerable. Appellate courts have repeatedly corrected this lapse. In Sandip Gorakh Naik<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>32<\/sup><\/a>, the Bombay High Court directed the Sessions Judge to decide such applications on a fixed date, emphasising that either interim protection must be granted or a prompt final hearing ensured.<\/p>\n

While superior courts recognise the need for limited administrative flexibility, they require that hearings be fixed on date certain terms with reasons recorded for any short adjournment. Repeated deferrals without protection transform process into punishment. Where such delay persists, a narrow High Court first approach becomes justified, consistent with the liberty protective spirit of Section 482<\/span><\/a> BNSS<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Counterarguments and limits<\/h2>\n

The concerns raised by the State — such as risk of absconding, witness intimidation, or evidence tampering are legitimate and well recognised. The Supreme Court has consistently directed that these factors guide the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail.33<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The statutory framework itself embeds these safeguards. Under Section 482(2)<\/span><\/a> BNSS<\/span><\/a> [corresponding to Section 438(2)<\/span><\/a> CrPC<\/span><\/a>] read with Section 480(3)<\/span><\/a> BNSS<\/span><\/a> [corresponding to Section 437(3)<\/span><\/a> CrPC<\/span><\/a>] the court may impose conditions ensuring cooperation, attendance, and non-tampering. Breach or change of circumstances empowers the prosecution to seek modification or cancellation under Section 483(3)<\/span><\/a> BNSS<\/span><\/a> [corresponding to Section 439(2)<\/span><\/a> CrPC<\/span><\/a>].<\/p>\n

These mechanisms preserve equilibrium between liberty and accountability. The limited High Court first exceptions proposed here do not undermine the Sessions first norm but ensure that where the lower forum ceases to function effectively — through delay or denial of interim protection, the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 remains substantive.<\/p>\n

Criteria for High Court — first approach (with model directions)<\/h2>\n

Drawing upon the Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia<\/span><\/a> case<\/span>34<\/sup><\/a>, Sushila Aggarwal case<\/span><\/a>35<\/sup><\/a> and the reasoning of the Amicus Curiae report in the case of Rasal C.<\/span><\/a>36<\/sup><\/a>, the following principles outline when direct High Court access may be justified.<\/p>\n

The Sessions first rule remains the norm. A High Court first filing is exceptional and permissible only when recourse to the Sessions Court is illusory or threatens immediate loss of liberty. Direct approach may be warranted where the record discloses one or more of these circumstances:<\/p>\n

1. Imminent arrest and denial of prompt protection<\/span> — a genuine risk of arrest with refusal of ad interim relief or fixation of a distant hearing.<\/p>\n

2. Procedural delay<\/span> — repeated adjournments, indefinite listings, or prolonged reservation of orders without interim safeguards.<\/p>\n

3. Time-bound or self-expiring orders<\/span> — imposition of arbitrary time-caps or automatic lapses without “special reasons recorded”.<\/p>\n

4. Dock-to-custody risk<\/span> — where personal appearance at final hearing exposes the applicant to immediate custody upon rejection.<\/p>\n

5. Venue-based or hostility impediments<\/span> — credible local hostility or safety threats that make the Sessions forum ineffective.<\/p>\n

6. Persistent non-application of settled principles<\/span> — a consistent pattern of disregard for binding rules on ad interim relief, non-time-bound duration, or expedition.<\/p>\n

These parameters reconcile concurrent jurisdiction with Article 21’s guarantee of liberty. They retain the hierarchical discipline envisioned by Parliament while ensuring that anticipatory bail protection remains practical and not merely theoretical.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

Anticipatory bail is not a gesture of leniency but a constitutional safeguard that shields liberty before the power of arrest is exercised. When established doctrine repeatedly meets systemic frictions — denial of ad interim relief, arbitrary time-caps, or adjournments without protection, a narrow High Court first exception becomes both lawful and necessary.<\/p>\n

Such calibrated exceptions do not erode the Sessions first rule; they give it substance by ensuring that the “ordinary forum” remains an effective remedy in practice. The measure of judicial hierarchy is not form but functionality — how promptly and fairly it secures personal liberty.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court’s pending decision in Rasal C. case<\/span><\/a>37<\/sup><\/a> offers an opportunity to codify this balance: preserving the structure of criminal court hierarchy while ensuring that the liberty protective promise of Section 482<\/span><\/a> BNSS<\/span><\/a> (and corresponding Section 438<\/span><\/a> CrPC<\/span><\/a>) remains real, not rhetorical.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

*IT professional with over ten years of experience in the technology industry. He is currently pursuing his LLB, Lloyd School of Law (3rd Semester), where he focuses on the intersection of law and technology. Author can be reached at: saraanshdayal3@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2728<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/span><\/a>, S. 2(<\/span>a<\/span>)<\/span><\/span><\/a> — definition of “bailable offence”.<\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/span><\/a>, S. 2(<\/span>b<\/span>)<\/span><\/span><\/a> — definition of “bail”.<\/p>\n

4.<\/a> Moti Ram<\/span> v. State of M.P.<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (1978) 4 SCC 47<\/span><\/a>: 1978 SCC (Cri) 485.<\/p>\n

5.<\/a> Black’s Law Dictionary<\/span> (4th Edn.) p. 177; Vaman Narain Ghiya<\/span> v. State of Rajasthan<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2009) 2 SCC 281<\/span><\/a> : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 745.<\/p>\n

6.<\/a> Gudikanti Narasimhulu<\/span> v. High Court of A.P.<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (1978) 1 SCC 240<\/span><\/a> : 1978 SCC (Cri) 115.<\/p>\n

7.<\/a> Sanjay Chandra<\/span> v. CBI<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2012) 1 SCC 40<\/span><\/a> : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 26 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 397.<\/p>\n

8.<\/a> Dataram Singh<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2018) 3 SCC 22<\/span><\/a> : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 675. Hussainara Khatoon (1)<\/span> v. State of Bihar<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (1980) 1 SCC 81<\/span><\/a> : 1980 SCC (Cri) 23.<\/p>\n

9.<\/a> Law Commission of India, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Report No. 41, p. 321, para 39.9.<\/p>\n

10.<\/a> Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2011) 1 SCC 694<\/span><\/a> : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514.<\/p>\n

11.<\/a> Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia<\/span> v. State of Punjab<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (1980) 2 SCC 565<\/span><\/a> : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465.<\/p>\n

12.<\/a> Balchand Jain<\/span> v. State of M.P.<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (1976) 4 SCC 572<\/span><\/a>: 1976 SCC (Cri) 689.<\/p>\n

13.<\/a> Sushila Aggarwal<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2020) 5 SCC 1<\/span><\/a> : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 721 (Constitution Bench).<\/p>\n

14.<\/a> (2011) 1 SCC 694<\/span><\/a> : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514.<\/p>\n

15.<\/a> 1976 SCC OnLine Raj 78<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

16.<\/a> 2004 SCC OnLine Ker 158<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

17.<\/a> Mohd. Rasal C.<\/span> v. State of Kerala<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2728<\/a>.<\/p>\n

18.<\/a> Mohd. Rasal C.<\/span> v. State of Kerala<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2728<\/a>.<\/p>\n

19.<\/a> 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 7431<\/a>.<\/p>\n

20.<\/a> Mohd. Rasal C.<\/span> v. State of Kerala<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2728<\/a>.<\/p>\n

21.<\/a> (2002) 4 SCC 578<\/span><\/a> : 2002 SCC (Cri) 830.<\/p>\n

22.<\/a> (1980) 2 SCC 565<\/span><\/a> : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465.<\/p>\n

23.<\/a> Shrenik Jayantilal Jain v. State of Maharashtra<\/span><\/a>, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1731<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

24.<\/a> Sushila Aggarwal<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2020) 5 SCC 1<\/span><\/a> : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 721 (Constitution Bench).<\/p>\n

25.<\/a> Sushila Aggarwal<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2020) 5 SCC 1<\/span><\/a> : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 721 (Constitution Bench).<\/p>\n

26.<\/a> Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2011) 1 SCC 694<\/span><\/a> : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514.<\/p>\n

27.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 408<\/a>.<\/p>\n

28.<\/a> Sushila Aggarwal<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2020) 5 SCC 1<\/span><\/a> : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 721 (Constitution Bench).<\/p>\n

29.<\/a> 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3759<\/a> reaffirming Sushila Aggarwal<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2020) 5 SCC 1<\/span><\/a> : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 721 (Constitution Bench).<\/p>\n

30.<\/a> Sushila Aggarwal<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2020) 5 SCC 1<\/span><\/span><\/a> : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 721 (Constitution Bench).<\/p>\n

31.<\/a> Rajesh Seth v. State of Gujarat<\/span><\/a>, (2023) 10 SCC 107<\/span><\/a> : (2023) 240 Comp Cas 1.<\/p>\n

32.<\/a> 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1706<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

33.<\/a> Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia<\/span> v. State of Punjab<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (1980) 2 SCC 565<\/span><\/a>: 1980 SCC (Cri) 465. Sushila Aggarwal<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2020) 5 SCC 1<\/span><\/a> : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 721 (Constitution Bench).<\/p>\n

34.<\/a> Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia<\/span> v. State of Punjab<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (1980) 2 SCC 565<\/span><\/a>: 1980 SCC (Cri) 465.<\/p>\n

35.<\/a> Sushila Aggarwal<\/span> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2020) 5 SCC 1<\/span><\/a> : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 721 (Constitution Bench).<\/p>\n

36.<\/a> Mohd. Rasal C.<\/span> v. State of Kerala<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2728<\/a>.<\/p>\n

37.<\/a> Mohd. Rasal C.<\/span> v. State of Kerala<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2728<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Saraansh Dayal*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":372698,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[96848,96852,96850,96851,96849],"class_list":["post-372695","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-anticipatory-bail-jurisprudence-india","tag-ex-parte-interim-protection","tag-high-court-anticipatory-bail-access","tag-mohd-rasal-c-v-state-of-kerala","tag-section-438-crpc-section-482-bnss"],"yoast_head":"\nSessions-First Rule in Anticipatory Bail: When Can High Courts Be Approached? | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Analysis of the Sessions-first rule in anticipatory bail and when direct High Court access is justified under Section 482 BNSS.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sessions-First as a Rule, Not a Straitjacket - Calibrating High Court Access in Anticipatory Bail\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Analysis of the Sessions-first rule in anticipatory bail and when direct High Court access is justified under Section 482 BNSS.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-01-15T03:30:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-01-17T06:25:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Sessions-First-Rule-in-Anticipatory-Bail.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Sessions-First as a Rule, Not a Straitjacket - Calibrating High Court Access in Anticipatory Bail\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/\",\"name\":\"Sessions-First Rule in Anticipatory Bail: When Can High Courts Be Approached? | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Sessions-First-Rule-in-Anticipatory-Bail.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-01-15T03:30:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-01-17T06:25:08+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Analysis of the Sessions-first rule in anticipatory bail and when direct High Court access is justified under Section 482 BNSS.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Sessions-First-Rule-in-Anticipatory-Bail.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Sessions-First-Rule-in-Anticipatory-Bail.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Sessions First Rule in Anticipatory Bail\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sessions-First as a Rule, Not a Straitjacket – Calibrating High Court Access in Anticipatory Bail\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sessions-First Rule in Anticipatory Bail: When Can High Courts Be Approached? | SCC Times","description":"Analysis of the Sessions-first rule in anticipatory bail and when direct High Court access is justified under Section 482 BNSS.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sessions-First as a Rule, Not a Straitjacket - Calibrating High Court Access in Anticipatory Bail","og_description":"Analysis of the Sessions-first rule in anticipatory bail and when direct High Court access is justified under Section 482 BNSS.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-01-15T03:30:11+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-01-17T06:25:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Sessions-First-Rule-in-Anticipatory-Bail.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Sessions-First as a Rule, Not a Straitjacket - Calibrating High Court Access in Anticipatory Bail","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/","name":"Sessions-First Rule in Anticipatory Bail: When Can High Courts Be Approached? | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Sessions-First-Rule-in-Anticipatory-Bail.webp","datePublished":"2026-01-15T03:30:11+00:00","dateModified":"2026-01-17T06:25:08+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Analysis of the Sessions-first rule in anticipatory bail and when direct High Court access is justified under Section 482 BNSS.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Sessions-First-Rule-in-Anticipatory-Bail.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Sessions-First-Rule-in-Anticipatory-Bail.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Sessions First Rule in Anticipatory Bail"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/sessions-first-rule-anticipatory-bail-high-court-access-bnss\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sessions-First as a Rule, Not a Straitjacket – Calibrating High Court Access in Anticipatory Bail"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Sessions-First-Rule-in-Anticipatory-Bail.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":275089,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/06\/allahabad-high-court-transit-anticipatory-bail-section-438-of-code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-constitution-of-india-jurisdiction-law-commission-report-pre-trial-arrest-liberty-regular-bail-l\/","url_meta":{"origin":372695,"position":0},"title":"What is Transit Anticipatory Bail? Allahabad High Court explains","author":"Editor","date":"October 6, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Allahabad High Court: In an anticipatory bail application, Rajesh Chauhan, J. has directed the police to release the applicant on transit bail on executing personal bond of Rs. 50,000\/- with two sureties of the like amount. The Court has also observed that there is no fetter on the part of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Allahabad High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277792,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/21\/allahabad-high-court-anticipatory-bail-is-a-statutory-right-not-a-constitutional-right-successive-anticipatory-bail-application-not-maintainable-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":372695,"position":1},"title":"Allahabad High Court| Anticipatory bail is a statutory right not a Constitutional right; Successive anticipatory bail application not maintainable","author":"Editor","date":"November 21, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Allahabad high Court: In a second anticipatory bail application for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (\u2018IPC\u2019) and 3 or 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (\u2018POCSO Act\u2019), Suresh Kumar Gupta, J. said that Section 439 Code of Criminal\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":241525,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/31\/triple-talaq-no-bar-on-granting-anticipatory-bail-for-an-offence-committed-under-the-muslim-women-protection-of-rights-on-marriage-act-2019-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":372695,"position":2},"title":"Triple Talaq| No bar on granting anticipatory bail for an offence committed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019: Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 31, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, JJ has held that there is no bar on granting anticipatory bail for an offence committed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019, provided that the competent court must hear the married\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":237951,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/24\/ker-hc-no-blanket-order-should-be-passed-under-s-438-crpc-to-prevent-accused-from-being-arrested-when-there-is-no-crime-registered-against-him-court-quashes-order-granting-anticipatory-bail\/","url_meta":{"origin":372695,"position":3},"title":"Ker HC | No blanket order should be passed under S. 438 CrPC to prevent accused from being arrested when there is no crime registered against him; Court quashes order granting anticipatory bail","author":"Editor","date":"October 24, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: P. Somarajan J., allowing the present criminal miscellaneous case, clarified the law related to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Brief Facts The State Government came up challenging the anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 CrPC. by the Sessions Judge on the simple\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":294090,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/07\/child-in-conflict-with-law-file-application-anticipatory-bail-s-438-crpc-allahabad-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":372695,"position":4},"title":"Can a child in conflict with law file an application for anticipatory bail under S. 438 CrPC? Allahabad High Court answers","author":"Apoorva","date":"June 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"A child enjoys equal rights with other persons. Therefore, it would be in violation of all the principles and provisions to deny an opportunity to exercise the right of preferring an application under Section 438 CrPC.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"allahabad high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":239515,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/23\/chh-hc-can-an-application-for-anticipatory-bail-under-s-438-crpc-be-filed-directly-before-the-high-court-thorough-analysis\/","url_meta":{"origin":372695,"position":5},"title":"Chh HC | Can an application for anticipatory bail under S. 438 CrPC be filed directly before the High Court? || Thorough Analysis","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 23, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Chhattisgarh High Court:\u00a0A Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Gautam Chourdiya, JJ., observed that, Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 should ordinarily be filed before the Sessions Court at the first instance. Such an application can be filed directly before the High Court when\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372695","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=372695"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372695\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":373007,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372695\/revisions\/373007"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/372698"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=372695"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=372695"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=372695"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}