“Exceptional Circumstances” Gatekeeping for Direct High Court Bail under Section 483 BNSS: Concurrent Jurisdiction Clarified, Hierarchical Prudence Reinforced

Introduction

In DR. AMIT KUMAR SINGAL v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH (2025 PHHC 107533), decided on 18 August 2025, the Punjab & Haryana High Court (per Sumeet Goel, J.) granted regular bail to an IRS officer accused of corruption following a CBI trap. Beyond the factual bail outcome, the decision delivers a significant doctrinal clarification under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): while Section 483 BNSS (analogous to Section 439 CrPC) confers concurrent jurisdiction on the Court of Session and the High Court to grant regular bail, a direct approach to the High Court—bypassing the Sessions Court—is ordinarily discouraged and will be entertained only in “exceptional circumstances.” The judgment meticulously distinguishes “maintainability” from “desirability,” articulates interpretive principles to avoid rendering statutory forums otiose, and harmonizes older and recent precedent under the CrPC and the BNSS.

Background

The CBI registered FIR RC0052025A0011 dated 31.05.2025 alleging that the petitioner, Dr. Amit Kumar Singal (a senior IRS officer), in alleged collusion with co-accused Harsh Kotak, demanded and accepted illegal gratification (Rs. 45 lakhs allegedly demanded; Rs. 25 lakhs allegedly accepted in a trap) to resolve or influence income-tax proceedings against the complainant. The offences invoked included Section 7/7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, besides provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and the case was investigated by CBI, ACB, Chandigarh.

The petitioner was arrested on 01.06.2025. A charge-sheet was filed on 30.07.2025 citing 19 prosecution witnesses. The petitioner approached the High Court directly for regular bail under Section 483 BNSS (read with the analogous Section 439 CrPC), without first seeking relief from the Special Judge/Sessions Court. The CBI opposed both the bail on merits and the maintainability/desirability of a direct High Court approach.

Summary of the Judgment

Concurrent Jurisdiction: Section 483 BNSS (like Section 439 CrPC) confers concurrent powers on the Sessions Court and the High Court to grant regular bail.
No Absolute Right to Bypass Sessions: While a direct approach to the High Court is maintainable, it is ordinarily undesirable unless justified by “exceptional circumstances.”
Exceptional Circumstances—Open-Textured, Case-Specific: The Court refuses to lay down an exhaustive checklist and emphasizes judicial discretion calibrated to the facts; examples may include pending connected proceedings before the High Court, risk of inconsistent orders, unusual urgency, or complex legal questions.
Why Entertain Directly Here: The High Court exercised discretion to entertain the petition directly due to a connected criminal writ (challenging arrest) pending before it; the co-accused’s bail was already before the High Court; and the bail petition had already been pending in the High Court for over two weeks—relegation at this stage would cause delay and inconsistency.
Bail Granted on Merits: Investigation was complete; charge-sheet filed; evidence largely documentary/electronic and in CBI custody; 19 PWs with none examined yet; custody exceeding two months; no concrete risk of absconding or tampering shown. The Court reiterated seminal bail principles emphasizing personal liberty and the non-punitive nature of pre-trial detention.
Safeguards/Conditions: The petitioner must not misuse liberty, must not tamper with evidence or commit offences, must attend trial, deposit passport, furnish/maintain phone details with the IO/Special Court, and not delay the trial; breach could lead to cancellation of bail.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court anchored its reasoning in a rich line of authorities spanning the CrPC, 1898; CrPC, 1973; and BNSS, 2023 eras:

1) Concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC/Section 483 BNSS

Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab & Others (P&H DB, 2002): Sections 438 and 439 confer concurrent powers on Sessions and High Courts; while ordinary prudence suggests approaching Sessions first, there is no statutory bar to a direct High Court filing; each case turns on its own facts.
Balan v. State of Kerala (Kerala DB, 2003): Jurisdiction is concurrent; the petition is maintainable directly in the High Court; no blanket insistence on “exceptional case” to entertain.
Y. Chendrasekhara Rao v. Y.V. Kamala Kumari (AP DB, 1993): Emphasized differences in urgency between anticipatory (Section 438) and regular bail (Section 439), but recognized the concurrent nature of jurisdiction.
Sandeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra (SC, 2014): Once surrender is accepted, custody within Section 439 is attracted; Sessions and High Courts exercise concurrent powers and must decide the merits.
Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju v. State of A.P. (SC, 2021): Reaffirmed concurrent jurisdiction; the High Court may consider bail on merits even when approached directly.
Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI (SC, 2024): The High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 439 is concurrent with the trial court; direct approach does not bar consideration on merits.
Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI (SC, 2025—recent pronouncement cited): Two concurring strands crystallized: (a) Surya Kant, J.—ordinarily, undertrials should approach the trial court first; (b) Ujjal Bhuyan, J.—even when approached directly, the High Court’s jurisdiction is concurrent and may be exercised on merits, particularly where delay or liberty concerns exist.

2) Anticipatory bail analogues and the “exceptional circumstances” filter

Mohan Lal v. Prem Chand (HP FB, 1980): Recognized direct approach for revision/anticipatory bail; laid groundwork for concurrency concepts.
Ankit Bharti v. State of U.P. (Allahabad FB, 2020): For anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC (now Section 482 BNSS), while direct High Court filings are not barred, the existence of “special/compelling” circumstances is for the judge to assess case-by-case.
Hare Ram Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh DB, 2020): Ordinarily approach Sessions first; direct High Court approach requires demonstration of exceptional, rare, or unusual reasons.
Manjeet Singh v. State of U.P. (SC, 07.08.2025): The Supreme Court faulted a High Court for not applying its mind to whether a direct anticipatory bail approach was warranted; reiterated that the High Court should first determine whether the case justifies invoking its jurisdiction at the outset.

Although anticipatory bail (Section 482 BNSS/Section 438 CrPC) and regular bail (Section 483 BNSS/Section 439 CrPC) are distinct, the High Court intelligently drew on the anticipatory bail “special circumstances” discourse to erect a prudential filter for direct High Court filings in regular bail matters too—tailored to the nature and posture of regular bail.

3) Statutory interpretation canons to avoid making the Sessions Court remedy redundant

Chief Justice of A.P. v. L.V.A. Dikshitulu (SC, 1979) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut (SC, 2007): Emphasized the literal rule and fidelity to plain text when clear; yet purposive considerations apply when ambiguity exists.
S. Teja Singh (SC, 1958); Management of Advance Insurance v. Gurudasmal (SC, 1970); Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. v. State of Assam (SC, 1989); CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers (SC, 2003): Applied the “ut res magis valeat quam pereat” maxim—courts must avoid constructions that render statutes futile or forums otiose; statutes are meant to be workable and effective.

4) Bail jurisprudence on liberty and trial-process safeguards

Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. P.P., High Court of A.P. (SC, 1978): Bail decisions are liberty-centric; pre-trial detention is not punishment; courts must weigh risks (absconding, tampering) but curtail punitive harshness.
Gurcharan Singh v. State (UT of Delhi) (SC, 1978): The core inquiry is whether conditions/bond can secure attendance and ensure submission to the court’s jurisdiction.
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (SC, 2012): Bail’s object is to secure appearance; punishment starts after conviction; detention pending trial must rest on necessity, not penalty.

Legal Reasoning

A. Maintainability versus Desirability

The Court draws a crucial distinction:

Maintainability: On a plain reading of Section 483 BNSS/Section 439 CrPC, a direct approach to the High Court is maintainable. The legislature used the disjunctive “or” to vest concurrent powers in both forums—no textual bar requires the Sessions Court to be approached first.
Desirability: As a matter of judicial discipline, hierarchy, and practical workability, litigants should ordinarily approach the Sessions Court first. This preserves the utility of the Sessions forum, leverages proximity to records (case diary, charge-sheet), expedites logistics, and provides the High Court with a reasoned first-instance order if approached later.

B. The “Exceptional Circumstances” Threshold for Direct High Court Filings

To prevent the High Court from becoming the default first-instance forum (thereby rendering the Sessions Court remedy illusory), the Court holds that direct filings should be entertained only when exceptional circumstances are shown. This standard is:

Open-textured and fact-sensitive: It resists exhaustive codification. The Court cites Lord Denning and Cardozo to emphasize discerning, case-by-case judicial discretion grounded in reason and conscience.
Illustrative indicators (non-exhaustive): A connected writ concerning the same FIR is pending before the High Court; a co-accused’s bail is already being heard by the High Court; there is pronounced procedural delay that would prejudice liberty; the matter turns on complex legal questions; or other compelling features that make relegation counter-productive or anomalous.

C. Distinguishing Revisional Jurisdiction

The Court rejects analogies to revisional jurisdiction (Sections 397/401 CrPC; now Sections 438/442 BNSS). Revisions have a single-shot design (bar on successive filings through Section 397(3)/Section 438(3) BNSS). By contrast, bail jurisdiction under Section 483 BNSS/Section 439 CrPC is concurrent but not mutually exclusive: rejection by the Sessions Court does not bar a fresh application in the High Court.

D. Applying the Principles to the Present Case

Despite the general rule of first approaching Sessions, the Court entertained this case directly because:

A connected criminal writ (challenging arrest in the same FIR) was already pending before the High Court;
The co-accused’s bail was also sub judice before the High Court;
The present bail petition had been pending in the High Court for over two weeks; relegating now would cause delay and risk inconsistency.

On the merits of bail, the Court emphasized completion of investigation, filing of charge-sheet, the documentary/electronic nature of evidence already in CBI custody, the number of witnesses (19) with none examined yet, custody exceeding two months, and the absence of concrete material showing risk of absconding or tampering—thus holding further incarceration unjustified.

Impact

This decision is likely to be a leading reference in bail practice under the BNSS within the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s jurisdiction and persuasive elsewhere because it:

Stabilizes practice under Section 483 BNSS: Confirms concurrent jurisdiction while preserving the Sessions Court’s primary role through a prudential “exceptional circumstances” filter for direct High Court filings.
Curbs floodgates: By eschewing an “indefeasible right” to bypass Sessions, it discourages routine direct filings that could clog the High Court and undermine the hierarchical structure.
Protects liberty: Once the High Court is seized—especially where delay would be counter-productive—the Court emphasizes deciding bail on merits rather than bouncing litigants on procedural technicalities, in sync with recent Supreme Court guidance.
Clarifies anticipatory versus regular bail posture: While both are concurrent, anticipatory bail typically demonstrates higher urgency; for regular bail, the bar to direct filing is somewhat higher, reinforcing the Sessions-first prudence.
Practical guidance to the Bar: Lawyers should accompany any direct High Court bail application with a clear, persuasive account of the “exceptional circumstances” justifying bypass of the Sessions Court.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Concurrent Jurisdiction: Two courts (Sessions and High Court) both have power to hear and decide the same type of application (here, regular bail). This does not mean both should be approached at once; it means the law allows either. Judicial discipline guides which one should be approached first.
Maintainability vs. Desirability: An application may be legally permissible (maintainable) but still not appropriate as a first step (desirable). The Court says direct High Court bail pleas are maintainable but generally undesirable without special justification.
Exceptional Circumstances: No fixed checklist. Think of circumstances that would make insisting on Sessions-first unfair, inefficient, or inconsistent—e.g., a connected matter already pending in the High Court, unusual delays, or unique legal complexity.
Ut res magis valeat quam pereat: A Latin maxim meaning “it is better for a thing to have effect than to be made void.” Courts interpret statutes to make them effective, not pointless. Here, reading Section 483 BNSS to allow routine bypass of Sessions would risk making the Sessions forum redundant—hence the prudential filter.
Golden Rule (Literal Rule): If statutory language is clear, courts apply it as written. Section 483 BNSS clearly confers concurrent jurisdiction—hence direct High Court filing is legally maintainable. But prudential doctrines still shape how that jurisdiction is exercised.
Revisional vs. Bail Jurisdiction: Revisions are a one-shot supervisory remedy—once you choose Sessions or High Court, you cannot file again in the other. Bail is different: rejection by Sessions does not preclude a fresh application to the High Court under the same bail provision.

Case-Specific Notes

Allegations: Acceptance of Rs. 25 lakhs allegedly on behalf of the petitioner in a CBI trap; alleged demand of Rs. 45 lakhs in total to influence tax proceedings.
Custody: Arrested on 01.06.2025; custody exceeded two months by the time of decision.
Status of Investigation: Charge-sheet filed on 30.07.2025; 19 prosecution witnesses; none examined.
Court’s Liberty-Risk Balance: Evidence being largely documentary/electronic and in CBI custody reduced the risk of tampering; no concrete material on absconding; prolonged trial prospects justified release.
Conditions Imposed:
- Do not misuse liberty or tamper with evidence.
- Attend trial; do not commit offences while on bail.
- Deposit passport (if any) with the trial court.
- Provide mobile number to the IO; do not change it without Special Court’s permission.
- Do not delay the trial. Breach may invite cancellation.
No opinion on merits: The Court expressly refrained from commenting on merits to avoid prejudice to trial.

Practice Pointers

When filing regular bail directly in the High Court, clearly articulate the exceptional circumstances justifying bypass of the Sessions Court (e.g., connected writ pending in High Court; co-accused bail in High Court; delay or risk of inconsistent orders; peculiar legal questions).
Substantiate why relegation would be counter-productive to liberty or efficiency.
Once the High Court has issued notice and substantive time has elapsed, courts are increasingly reluctant to relegate the matter on procedural grounds—seek a merits decision.
Assist the court with custody duration, status of investigation/charge-sheet, nature of evidence (especially whether it is already secured), and any measures to mitigate flight/tampering risk.

Conclusion

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s judgment is notable for striking a principled balance between statutory concurrency and judicial hierarchy in bail jurisprudence under the BNSS. It confirms that:

Section 483 BNSS/Section 439 CrPC confers concurrent jurisdiction—direct High Court bail is maintainable;
Ordinarily, litigants should approach the Sessions Court first—desirability grounded in judicial discipline and workability;
Direct High Court filings should be entertained only upon demonstrating exceptional circumstances, assessed case-by-case;
Once seized and in appropriate cases, the High Court will prioritize merits to safeguard personal liberty, echoing Supreme Court guidance.

On the facts, the Court prudently entertained the petition and granted bail post-charge-sheet, emphasizing the non-punitive nature of pre-trial detention, the centrality of personal liberty under Article 21, and practical safeguards through tailored conditions. The ruling provides a clear doctrinal compass under the BNSS: it preserves the Sessions Court’s centrality in the ordinary course while ensuring that the High Court remains an accessible sentinel on the qui vive where liberty would otherwise be compromised by delay, inconsistency, or exceptional exigency.