HIGH COURTS SHOULD DISCOURAGE DIRECT FILING OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL PLEAS, ASK PARTIES TO APPROACH SESSIONS COURT FIRST: SUPREME COURT

Introduction
The Supreme Court of India's recent decision in Jagdeo Prasad v. State of
Bihar (SLP (Crl.) No.17805 of 2024) has reinforced judicial principles governing
anticipatory bail applications, particularly in cases involving serious criminal charges.
Decided on September 17, 2025, by the Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and
Sandeep Mehta, this Judgment addresses critical issues surrounding the misuse of
anticipatory bail provisions and emphasizes the need for judicious exercise of judicial
discretion in heinous crimes.
Case Background and Facts
The tragic incident that forms the foundation of this case occurred on December 16,
2023, when the Appellant's wife, employed as a health worker at Primary Health
Center, Pandark, was murdered. The Victim was shot dead around 3:30 PM by
contract killers allegedly hired by the Respondents, who operated an illegal money
lending racket charging exorbitant interest rates of approximately 35% per month.
Investigation revealed a systematic criminal operation where the Respondents would
lend money at usurious rates and subsequently extort borrowers through coercion
and threats.
The police investigation yielded substantial evidence, including CCTV footage from a
nearby shop showing the Victim walking with a middle-aged man at 3:22 PM,
followed by the actual shooting by two helmet-wearing assailants on a motorcycle.
Subsequently, authorities arrested an individual who provided a confessional
statement revealing that the Respondents' family members had hired the assassin
for ₹2,40,000.
The Patna High Court's Order granting anticipatory bail to the Accused persons on
the grounds that they were women with clean antecedents, claims that it was
improbable for a health worker to have lakhs of rupees available for extortion and
suggestions that the Complainant was falsely implicating the Accused family.
Supreme Court's Analysis and Legal Principles

The Supreme Court emphasized the delicate balance required between protecting
individual liberty and ensuring public safety. While acknowledging that bail is
generally a discretionary judicial exercise, the Court stressed that this discretion
must be exercised with extreme caution, particularly in cases involving serious
criminal charges.
The Court identified three pivotal factors that the High Court should have considered:
1. Broad Daylight Murder: The brazen nature of the crime, committed in public
view during daytime hours
2. Contract Killing: The involvement of hired assassins, indicating premeditation
and criminal conspiracy
3. History of Conflict: The established pattern of threats and extortion that
created a prima facie case against the accused
Concurrent Jurisdiction Principle
An important legal principle emerged from this judgment regarding the concurrent
jurisdiction of High Courts and Sessions Courts in anticipatory bail matters. The
Supreme Court observed that High Courts should encourage the exhaustion of
alternative remedies before direct intervention, allowing for a more balanced
approach to justice administration.
Procedural Safeguards and Judicial Accountability
The Judgment highlighted significant procedural irregularities in the High Court's
decision-making process. The Supreme Court noted that the Complainant was not
made a party to the anticipatory bail proceedings, denying them the opportunity to
present their case effectively.
Stakeholder Balance
The Court advocated for an approach that balances the interests of all stakeholders
by providing aggrieved parties with a first round of challenge before the High Court
while giving the superior court an opportunity to assess the judicial perspective
applied by the Sessions Court.
Legal Implications and Precedential Value
This Judgment establishes several important points for future anticipatory bail
determinations:
 Courts must apply rigorous scrutiny when evaluating anticipatory bail
applications in cases involving serious crimes, particularly those with
elements of organized criminal activity.

 Courts should base their determinations on concrete evidence rather than
superficial character assessments or improbable defence arguments.
 The importance of following proper procedural safeguards, ensuring all
relevant parties get adequate opportunity to present their cases.
By setting aside the High Court's order and directing the accused to surrender within
four weeks, the Supreme Court sent a clear message about the consequences of
judicial laxity in serious criminal matters.
Conclusion
This Judgment reinforces fundamental principles of justice while providing clear
guidance for future cases involving serious criminal charges. The Court's emphasis
on judicious exercise of discretion, proper consideration of evidence and balanced
approach to individual liberty versus public safety concerns establishes a robust
framework for anticipatory bail determinations. The judgment ultimately serves as a
reminder that while the legal system must protect individual rights, it cannot do so at
the expense of justice for victims of heinous crimes.

YASH HARI DIXIT
Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about
various aspects of the law. Our latest Video titled “Legal Requirements for Indian
Startups | Complete Q&A 2025 | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma” can be viewed at
the Link below: