HC: Regular bail pleas to be ordinarily filed before Sessions Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an accused must ordinarily approach the Sessions Court first for grant of regular bail, though the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) confer concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and Sessions Court.

Justice Sumeet Goel ruled that exceptional circumstances must necessarily be shown to justify a direct approach to the High Court without exhausting the forum of the Sessions Court.

Justice Goel asserted Section 439 CrPC/Section 483 of the BNSS did not require that an accused to first approach the Sessions Court before applying to the High Court for grant of regular bail.

At the same time, the court observed: “Notwithstanding the existence of concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court and the Sessions Court for grant of Regular bail under Section 439 CrPC/Section 483 BNSS, there is no indefeasible right vested in the accused to approach the High Court directly/straightaway for grant of regular bail bypassing the forum of Sessions Court. An accused ought to ordinarily approach Sessions Court, in the first instance, when making a plea for regular bail. Exceptional circumstances must necessarily be shown to exist in justification of the High Court being approached directly/straightaway, without the avenue as available before the Sessions Court, being exhausted.”

Justice Goel made it clear whether a case involved such exceptional circumstances would depend on its individual facts: “It is neither axiomatic nor fathomable to chronicle exceptional circumstances or compendiously postulate any exhaustive set of guidelines for exercise of such discretion by the High Court, for every case has its own peculiar factual matrix.”

Justice Goel placed the discussion in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution by observing: “The principle of individual liberty, enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is a cornerstone of our legal system, holding a position of paramount importance. This fundamental right dictates that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by the law.”

Justice Goel, simultaneously, added that liberty was not unbridled: “The criminal justice system, with its procedural safeguards codified in statutes, has laid out a congruent legal framework for permissible curtailment of this liberty. Such restrictions are deemed necessary to address any anti-social and anti-national elements and to uphold the broader interests of the society. In this context, the grant of regular bail is a critical mechanism for balancing the State’s interest in prosecution with an individual’s right to liberty.”

Tracing the legislative framework, Justice Goel observed that the provisions empowering the High Court to grant bail have consistently remained “pari materia” from the CrPC of 1898, CrPC of 1973, and the BNSS of 2023.

He stated: “This consistent legislative stance underscores the enduring role of the High Court as the apex statutory forum, as per the CrPC, as well as the BNSS, for consideration of a plea for grant of bail.”

The Bench added that clear and unambiguous language employed by the legislature in Section 439 of the CrPC and Section 483 of the BNSS, unequivocally demonstrated the legislative intent to vest the concurrent jurisdiction in both the High Court and the Court of Session for the grant of bail.

Justice Goel also drew a sharp distinction between “maintainability of a petition” and “desirability to entertain a petition”.

“The difference is antithetical, divergerent and as stark as that between chalk and cheese. While the plain language of a statute may not bar the maintainability of a plea, it does not automatically render the plea desirable for consideration, the court observed.”

The Bench cautioned against interpreting the statute in a way that rendered the Sessions Court redundant: “It is, thus, indubitable that the statutory mandate, contained in Section 439 of the CrPC and Section 483 of the BNSS, ought not to be interpreted in a manner on account whereof the remedy of seeking regular bail before Sessions Court pales into oblivion.”

Referring to judicial discipline, Justice Goel added: “The principle of judicial discipline dictates that, notwithstanding the existence of concurrent jurisdiction, the Sessions Court ought to be approached as a forum of first instance in the general course of events. This practice is not merely a matter of convention but is underpinned by several practical and jurisprudential considerations.”

Among the advantages, Justice Goel cited the Sessions Court’s geographical proximity and easier access to records: “The geographical accessibility of the Sessions Court provides a distinct advantage. Placed at the local level; it offers a more convenient forum for the applicant (and/or his Pairavi/person who is persuing on his behalf, since applicant is in custody), the Investigating Officer (IO) and other requisite officials; whose presence is often required for proper adjudication of the matter.”

The court added: “The Sessions Court has ready access to the relevant records, including the Case Diary, the charge-sheet and other pertinent documents. This direct access enables a more thorough and informed consideration of the application without the logistical delays associated with producing the records before the High Court.”

Justice Goel further pointed out that first scrutiny by the Sessions Court enriched the High Court’s role: “Moreover, this hierarchical approach serves a vital jurisprudential purpose. When an application for bail is first adjudicated by the Sessions Court, the High Court, if subsequently approached, has the benefit of a considered and observant judicial opinion.”

The court added: “A plea for grant of regular bail, filed straightaway before the High Court in the first instance, ought to be entertained only if there are exceptional circumstances made out therein.”