Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Granted in Contemptuous Violation of Supreme Court’s Judgment - Allahabad High Court has ruled that an Additional Sessions Judge exceeded jurisdiction by treating non-bailable offences as bailable while granting anticipatory bail, a clear violation of Supreme Court precedent.

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, in Rajesh Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors., quashed an order passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-II/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Buddha Nagar, which had granted anticipatory bail while improperly converting non-bailable offences into bailable ones. The High Court observed that the Sessions Court had acted in blatant disregard of settled legal principles, thereby necessitating judicial intervention.

Justice Saurabh Srivastava, while delivering the judgment, held that “Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in cases where non-bailable offences are involved unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying it. The Sessions Court cannot arrogate to itself the power to alter the classification of offences while considering a bail application.”

The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Sharma, had approached the High Court challenging the order dated 17.05.2024, arguing that the Sessions Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by treating serious non-bailable offences as bailable while granting anticipatory bail. The petitioner contended that this approach ran contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 3 SCR 421, where it was categorically held that treating non-bailable offences as bailable while granting anticipatory bail was impermissible.

The High Court, while emphasizing the fundamental principles governing anticipatory bail, referred to Abdul Basit v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary, (2014) 10 SCC 754, which had established that anticipatory bail can only be reconsidered if there is substantial evidence indicating misuse of liberty, interference with the investigation, or commission of further crimes. The court also cited Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481, to reinforce that bail, once granted on improper grounds, can be canceled if it vitiates the administration of justice.

Observing the Sessions Court’s overreach, the High Court noted, “The lower court was not competent to reclassify the nature of the offence. It was neither within its jurisdiction nor in consonance with established legal norms.” The judgment further reiterated that anticipatory bail, when granted in violation of Supreme Court precedent, “cannot be sustained and must be set aside.”

Striking down the impugned portion of the order, the High Court concluded, “Granting anticipatory bail by treating non-bailable offences as bailable is a grave legal error. Such an act undermines the administration of criminal justice and directly contravenes binding precedent.”

With this ruling, the Allahabad High Court reaffirmed the judicial discipline required of subordinate courts and underscored the principle that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a manner that nullifies the statutory classification of offences.

Date of Decision: 21.02.2025