Supreme Court Grants Protection Without Lower Court Application: A Procedural Anomaly?
The recent Supreme Court decision in Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (Crl) No. 83/2025) has raised an important legal question regarding the procedural propriety of seeking protection against arrest directly from the apex court. The accused, booked under Sections 79, 196, 296, 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000, successfully obtained interim protection from arrest from the Supreme Court, despite not having first approached the Sessions Court or High Court under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973.
As of now, there are no sources available on Google which indicate that the accused applied for bail before the Sessions Court or High Court and was rejected. Therefore, it will be assumed that he directly approached the Supreme Court for relief.
This raises a fundamental question:
Was the procedure followed in this case legally appropriate?
Understanding Section 438 CrPC: The Statutory Route for Anticipatory Bail
1. What is Section 438 CrPC?
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides for anticipatory bail, which allows a person to seek protection from arrest before they are actually arrested in a non-bailable offense. It acts as a safeguard against possible harassment, wrongful arrest, or abuse of power by the police.
2. What is the Proper Procedure to Apply for Anticipatory Bail?
The normal legal process requires an accused to:
- First approach the Sessions Court within whose jurisdiction the alleged offense has been registered.
- If denied by the Sessions Court, the accused can then file an anticipatory bail application before the High Court.
- Only if both courts refuse relief, or if extraordinary circumstances exist, can the accused approach the Supreme Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction (Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution).
Precedents: What Do Case Laws Say?
The Supreme Court has, on multiple occasions, reiterated that an accused must first exhaust their remedies before approaching the apex court.
1. State of M.P. v. Ramesh C. Sharma, (2005) 12 SCC 628
The Supreme Court emphasized that anticipatory bail should be sought first from the Sessions Court and then from the High Court, barring exceptional cases where fundamental rights are at stake.
2. Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1
A Constitution Bench held that anticipatory bail must be granted based on specific circumstances and should not become a tool to bypass the legal hierarchy.
3. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., (2009) 4 SCC 437
The SC held that High Courts and Sessions Courts must be approached first before invoking the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
4. Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51
The Court clearly stated that the hierarchy of remedies must be followed in bail matters, and direct intervention by the Supreme Court is only justified in exceptional circumstances.
Was the Supreme Court’s Direct Intervention Justified?
In Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia, the Supreme Court granted protection without requiring the accused to follow the statutory remedy under Section 438 CrPC. While the SC has discretionary powers under Article 32 or 136 of the Constitution, this order raises concerns about setting a precedent that undermines the established procedure for anticipatory bail.
Unless the accused could prove extraordinary circumstances, political vendetta, or gross violation of fundamental rights, bypassing the Sessions and High Court deviates from settled legal principles.
Conclusion
The normal legal procedure mandates that an accused must first approach the Sessions Court, then the High Court, before seeking relief from the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court has discretionary powers, direct intervention without following due process should remain an exception, not the norm. The Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia case opens the debate on whether judicial discretion should override established statutory remedies, potentially altering the anticipatory bail jurisprudence in India.
Would this ruling create a precedent for others to bypass lower courts? Only time will tell.
