The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday referred to a three-judge bench the crucial question of whether litigants can directly approach high courts for anticipatory bail or must first seek respite from the sessions court. This decision emerged during a session led by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, who expressed the need for a comprehensive legal examination of this issue.
“This matter requires to be heard by a three-judge bench,” the court noted while outlining the implications surrounding anticipatory bail applications in the country. This discussion comes after the court appointed senior advocate Siddharth Luthra as an amicus curiae to assist in navigating the complexities surrounding anticipatory bail.
The Supreme Court previously raised concerns about the unconventional practice employed by the Kerala High Court, where anticipatory bail applications are often entertained directly without litigants approaching the sessions court. “This practice appears to be a significant deviation from established legal protocols,” the bench noted.
On September 8, the Supreme Court probed the reasons behind this practice, questioning, “One issue that is bothering us is why the Kerala High Court entertains anticipatory bail applications directly?” This critical inquiry highlighted the necessity of following a clear legal hierarchy, as seen in both the old Code of Criminal Procedure and the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Section 482 of the BNSS outlines provisions pertaining to the grant of bail for individuals apprehending arrest. The court highlighted, “It doesn’t happen in any other state. Only in the Kerala High Court… applications for anticipatory bail are regularly entertained directly,” emphasizing the need for uniformity in judicial practices across the nation.
This discussion was triggered by a plea filed by two individuals contesting a Kerala High Court order that denied them anticipatory bail. The petitioners directly approached the high court, sidestepping the sessions court, which led the Supreme Court to question the efficacy of such a practice.
The court pointed out, “Such practices may deprive courts of proper factual records that would typically be placed before a sessions court.” The bench evaluated whether opting to approach the high court should remain a discretionary choice for the accused or be mandated by law as a mandatory procedure.
The Supreme Court further issued a notice to the Kerala High Court, directing its Registrar General to respond to these pressing concerns. This move indicates the apex court’s robust commitment to maintaining judicial integrity and adherence to procedural norms.
Legal experts view this referral to a three-judge bench as a significant development, emphasizing the reformative potential this holds for the anticipatory bail framework in India. As the judiciary deliberates on the matter, the legal community remains vigilant for any changes that may arise regarding anticipatory bail proceedings.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s referral of the anticipatory bail issue to a larger bench signifies an essential scrutiny of legal practices that have hardened over time. As this matter progresses, it could redefine the accessibility of anticipatory bail and reshape judicial processes nationwide.
