The Supreme Court has ruled that High Courts cannot grant pre-arrest bail without quashing an FIR. Accused individuals must first approach the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, reinforcing the proper legal hierarchy and protecting ongoing investigations.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that High Courts cannot grant pre-arrest bail while refusing to quash a First Information Report (FIR). The ruling reinforces the statutory hierarchy of courts and emphasizes that an accused must first approach the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail before seeking relief from higher courts.
Background of the Case
The case arose when the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted protection from arrest to accused individuals through writ petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Article 226 of the Constitution, despite refusing to quash the FIR.
The FIR in question was No. 249 of 2025, registered at Police Station Chhata, District Mathura, under various sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The accused had sought a blanket protection from arrest until the investigation concluded.
The Legal Issue
The Supreme Court questioned the legality of High Courts granting pre-arrest protection while refusing to quash an FIR. The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held this approach to be:
- Self-contradictory: If an FIR discloses a cognizable offense, granting protection from arrest undermines the investigation.
- Procedurally incorrect: Pre-arrest bail provisions under Section 438 CrPC must first be sought from the Sessions Court.
Court’s Observation
1. Respect the Judicial Hierarchy
The Court reaffirmed that High Courts cannot bypass the Sessions Court. If an individual seeks anticipatory bail, the proper course is to apply to the Sessions Court, which is the competent authority under CrPC provisions.
2. No Contradictory Reliefs
Granting protection from arrest while refusing to quash the FIR is logically inconsistent and prejudicial to the investigation.
3. Prejudice to Investigation
Blanket protection from arrest “until the filing of the charge sheet” compromises the police investigation and violates principles of justice.
4. Reliance on Precedent: Neeharika Doctrine
The Supreme Court relied heavily on the Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401 ruling. It held that:
- High Courts have powers under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC, but these powers must not be used to grant automatic pre-arrest protection.
- Relief like anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly, only where absolutely warranted.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court orders dated 16th June 2025 and 15th July 2025, and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the quashing petitions on merits. The parties were directed to appear before the High Court on 7th January 2026.
The interim protection that had been granted by the High Court was allowed to continue until the pendency of the petitions. The Supreme Court also urged the High Court to decide the petitions as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from January 2026.
Case Title:
Sanjay Kumar Gupta Versus State of U.P. & Ors.
SLP (Crl.) No(s).17464-17465 of 2025
READ ORDER
