High Court Not First Door to Knock for Anticipatory Bail Unless Special Circumstances Are Shown: Andhra Pradesh HC

Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered a significant judgment clarifying the procedural discipline required for seeking anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Court ruled that an accused cannot directly invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 BNSS to seek pre-arrest bail without first approaching the Sessions Court, unless there exist special or extraordinary circumstances justifying such a move.

The case involved allegations of large-scale cheating in a commercial transaction concerning dishonour of cheque and non-payment for agricultural produce amounting to over ₹16.46 lakhs. The High Court, while declining to entertain the petition on grounds of maintainability, granted interim protection for two weeks to allow the accused to move the Sessions Court.

"Mere Apprehension of Arrest Does Not Constitute Special Circumstance to Bypass Sessions Court" — High Court Reiterates Doctrine of Hierarchical Discipline in Bail Matters

The judgment came in a criminal petition filed by the accused, Morimisetty Suresh alias Dal Mill Suri, under Section 482 of the BNSS, praying for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 61 of 2025 registered at Kothacheruvu Urban Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, for offences under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (BNS).

The case revolved around alleged fraudulent procurement of maize worth ₹50,00,000 from local farmers. It was alleged that the accused made partial payments and issued a cheque for ₹9,00,000 towards the balance, which bounced due to insufficient funds. The unpaid amount of ₹16,46,185 remained pending despite repeated reminders, and the complainant alleged that the accused is a habitual offender involved in similar cases.

According to the prosecution, the accused induced the de-facto complainant to procure 1,500 metric tons of maize between 2nd March and 21st May 2025 by promising payment at market rate. While part of the amount was paid, the cheque issued for ₹9 lakhs bounced, and the remaining ₹16.46 lakhs went unpaid. Communications via WhatsApp and false assurances further aggravated the complainant’s grievance, eventually leading to registration of the FIR.

The petitioner, represented by Mr. D. Devendra Naik, submitted that he was being falsely implicated and that custodial interrogation was not warranted. It was further argued that the transaction was of a commercial nature, and that the petitioner, being the sole earning member of the family, would suffer irreparable hardship if arrested.

Maintainability of Anticipatory Bail Petition Filed Directly Before High Court

The central legal issue before the Court was whether an anticipatory bail petition filed directly before the High Court under Section 482 BNSS is maintainable when the petitioner had not first approached the Sessions Court as required by the structured procedure.

The Assistant Public Prosecutor, Mr. Neelotphal Ganji, strongly objected to the maintainability of the petition, relying on the binding precedent of Mohammed Rasal.C v. State of Kerala, wherein the Supreme Court emphasized a structured filtration process requiring anticipatory bail petitions to be first filed before the Sessions Court.

Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao echoed this principle, observing: “Albeit this Court has got concurrent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS, such discretionary relief would only be granted, when the Petitioner establishes a special or extraordinary circumstance.”

Finding no such exceptional ground in the present case, the Court held that: “Mere apprehension of arrest or claim of being falsely implicated does not constitute special ground.”

Apex Court’s Guiding Framework Must Be Followed

The High Court extensively relied on Mohammed Rasal.C to reiterate the structured approach to be followed in anticipatory bail matters. Quoting Paragraphs 7–9 of the Supreme Court judgment, the Court emphasized that:

“The Sessions Court would also have an immediate access to the Case Diary thereby facilitating a better appreciation of facts of the case.”

The High Court clarified that the approach to High Court in the first instance is impermissible in absence of special justification and that entertaining such petitions routinely would “flood” the High Court, defeating the filtration mechanism intended by law.

The petitioner neither established procedural urgency nor provided any convincing reason why the Sessions Court was not approached.

Details of the Court’s Order and Interim Protection

Though the Court dismissed the criminal petition as not maintainable, it granted limited interim relief: “The Criminal Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Sessions Judge concerned and move an appropriate application for grant of pre-arrest bail within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”

Further, to balance the rights of the accused with the procedural discipline, the Court directed: “Until such time, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner.”

The Court also made it clear that the Sessions Judge must: “...hear the arguments of both sides and pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law,”

without being influenced by the High Court’s present order.

In this judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reinforced the procedural protocol for seeking anticipatory bail under the newly introduced BNSS framework. The Court held that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and not as a matter of routine, particularly when there exists a well-established alternate remedy before the Sessions Court. This decision sends a clear message discouraging the circumvention of judicial hierarchy and ensures that anticipatory bail continues to be a remedy of exception rather than convenience.

Date of Decision: 24 September 2025