No Special Reason To Skip Sessions Court: Patna HC Rejects Husband And In-Laws’ Direct Anticipatory Bail Pleas In Nurse’s Suicide Case

The petitioners sought anticipatory bail directly from the Patna High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in Chitragupta Nagar P.S. Case No. 27 of 2026, registered under Sections 108/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The FIR alleged that they had instigated the deceased, Bhavani Kumari, to commit suicide. The petitioners denied the allegations and argued, among other things, that the deceased had lived separately from her husband and was not in contact with them.

The State and informant objected that the petitions had been filed without first approaching the Sessions Court. The Stamp Reporter also raised a maintainability objection on that ground

Section 482 of the BNSS confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail.

The court relied on Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2014) 16 SCC 623, in recognising the concurrent jurisdiction of those courts

It also accepted the principle, advanced by the informant by reference to a Supreme Court judgment dated 17 September 2025, that the High Court should ordinarily encourage parties to exhaust an alternative or concurrent remedy before approaching it directly

Approaching the Sessions Court first is not an absolute precondition: the High Court may entertain a direct application in exceptional cases or where special circumstances justify doing so, but may decline to exercise its discretion where no such circumstances are shown

The court accepted that the petitioners could invoke the High Court’s concurrent jurisdiction, but held that this did not require the High Court to entertain every anticipatory-bail application filed directly before it.

It found that the petitions identified no compelling or special circumstance requiring the petitioners to bypass the Sessions Court; their explanation consisted only of bald statements.

The court therefore declined to consider the applications on their merits

It permitted them, if so advised, to apply to the Sessions Court or concerned court within four weeks of receipt or production of the judgment.

Any such application is to be considered on its own merits and without prejudice from this judgment.