On a recent Wednesday, the Supreme Court elevated the debate over anticipatory bail applications to a three-judge bench, which will evaluate whether High Courts have the jurisdiction to entertain such applications without prior reference to Sessions Courts. The development originated from a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, who expressed concerns regarding the practice of the Kerala High Court in handling anticipatory bail cases directly.
The issues were first raised in the case of Mohammed Rasal C v. State of Kerala, with the bench emphasizing that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, allows concurrent jurisdiction between High Courts and Sessions Courts. However, they suggested that applications for anticipatory bail should generally be directed to the Sessions Court first, reserving High Court intervention for exceptional cases.
In this context, the court appointed Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra as an amicus curiae to provide guidance on the matter. Following an in-depth review, Luthra submitted a report wherein he recommended that High Courts should limit their direct engagement in anticipatory bail applications to four specific exceptional scenarios. This perspective sparked further discussions, leading Luthra to propose that the issue be escalated to a three-judge bench for more profound deliberation.
Moreover, the Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) expressed their interest in participating in the case and filed a petition to be included. Represented by Senior Advocates S Nagamuthu and V Giri, the KHCAA aims to play a role in the ongoing discourse surrounding the jurisdictional powers of High Courts over anticipatory bail proceedings.
The bench acknowledged the significance of the issues raised and adjourned the matter, ensuring it is set to be heard by a three-judge combination in the future. This judicial development signals a potential shift in how anticipatory bail applications may be processed moving forward and could set important precedents for similar cases across India.