-
by sayum
06 July 2026 2:51 PM
Direct Anticipatory Bail Plea Maintainable Before High Court Only in 'Special Circumstances' - In a significant ruling Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court clarified the legal framework regarding direct filing of anticipatory bail applications before the High Court without first approaching the Sessions Court. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that although such a practice is discouraged, "special and compelling circumstances" may justify bypassing the Sessions Court. The Court granted anticipatory bail to a 21-year-old engineering student accused in a dowry death case, acknowledging both the weak evidentiary link against him and the disruptive consequences of arrest on his education.
The FIR was lodged on March 31, 2025, against the applicant Prashant Shukla, along with his family members, under Sections 80 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant alleged that his daughter was subjected to dowry-related harassment by her husband (the applicant’s brother) and in-laws, and was allegedly strangulated by the applicant’s mother on March 29, 2025.
Despite the serious allegations in the FIR, the postmortem report recorded the cause of death as "asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging," with a single ligature mark and no other injuries.
Issue of Maintainability: Can One Approach High Court Directly for Anticipatory Bail?
The informant raised a preliminary objection that the applicant had not approached the Sessions Court first, where applications of co-accused had already been rejected. It was contended that this direct approach violated established procedural expectations.
Justice Vidyarthi, however, rejected this objection: “The applicant is a young man who is pursuing B.Tech. Course… the Sessions Court has already rejected the prayer for grant of interim protection to three co-accused persons… These circumstances make out an exceptional circumstance justifying the applicant… approaching this Court directly.”
The Court placed reliance on the five-judge Full Bench ruling in Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P., which reiterated that while both High Courts and Sessions Courts enjoy concurrent jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (and now under BNSS), special reasons must justify approaching the High Court first. Citing Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P., the Court emphasized:
“What would constitute ‘special circumstances’… must be left to be gathered by the Judge on a due evaluation of the facts… it is manifest that it was open for the learned Judge to assess the facts of each case.”
“No Specific Allegation Against the Applicant”
On the factual front, Justice Vidyarthi carefully weighed the evidence. While the FIR accused the applicant's mother of strangulation “with help of other accused,” the postmortem showed death by hanging and no external injuries:
“Although the FIR alleges that the applicant’s mother strangulated the deceased with the help of other accused persons, the postmortem report only mentions a ligature mark… No specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant.”
The Court also took note of the applicant’s youth, academic commitments, and absence of any direct role: “The applicant is a young man aged 21 years who is pursuing bachelor course in engineering and he has undertaken to cooperate in the investigation and trial.”
Balancing the need for custodial interrogation against the personal liberty of the applicant, the Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions, including full cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with witnesses, and appearance before the trial court as required.
“In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.”
The ruling once again clarifies that while direct filing of anticipatory bail applications before the High Court is not the norm, it is not barred either—so long as it is supported by compelling factual circumstances.
Date of Decision: 2 May 2025
