The Karnataka High Court has held that anticipatory bail applications should be moved before the Sessions Court at the first instance, unless there are exceptional circumstances to file such application directly before the High Court.

The Court was considering a Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 filed by Petitioner seeking to release him on anticipatory bail.

The Bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz held, "Though Sessions Court and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction in entertaining and deciding a petition for bail, it is prudent for the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court at the first instance, unless there are exceptional circumstances to file such application directly before the High Court, bypassing the Sessions Court."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Tajuddin while the Respondent was represented by Harish Ganapathy.

The Case was registered against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 69, 318(2) of BNS, 2023. The Complainant and the accused were working as teachers hence, they got acquainted with each other. It was alleged that the accused with a promise of marriage, committed sexual intercourse with the complainant and later cheated her etc.

Counsel for Petitioner contended that both Sessions Court and High Court are having concurrent jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking bail and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court directly. He would contend that the petitioner was kidnapped by the henchman of the complainant and detained and consequently a missing complaint was filed by his father. He contended that the entire allegations made against the petitioner are false and created and there is a threat to the petitioner.

He relied on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mohanlal Nandram Choudhari v. State of Maharashtra (2007).

The Court was of the view that no exceptional reasons are made out so as to entertain the instant petition.

"If an adverse order is passed by the Sessions Court, it is always open for the petitioner to file a petition before this Court for the same relief. If the instant petition seeking anticipatory bail is entertained without there being any exceptional grounds made out, it will set a precedent and in every case, this Court has to deal with such petitions," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly disposed off by reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy before the Sessions Court.

Cause Title: Sri Imran H. vs. State of Karnataka (NC: 2025:KHC:4503)

Click here to read/ download Order


Karnataka High CourtJustice Mohammad Nawaz

Sheetal Joon