CUTTACK, India, May 26 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on April 23:

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

3. The Petitioners, apprehending their arrest in connection with NTPC P.S. Case No.29 of 2026, corresponding to G.R. Case No.236 of 2026, pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Talcher for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 85/115(2)/296/3(5)/351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the BNSS for release on pre-arrest bail.

4. Without going into the merits of the present petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 482 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.) seeking direction for pre-arrest bail, this Court is to observe first that whether the petition under Section 482 of the BNSS is maintainable before this Court without exhausting remedy under the said provision before the Court of Sessions which has concurrent jurisdiction.

5. This Court has earlier decided the similar issue in the case of Mitu Das and others v. State of Odisha1 observing that ordinarily, in case of petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, the remedy before the Court of Sessions ought to be exhausted before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors.2 has categorically held as follows:

"6) However, before parting, we do wish to express our sincere concern with the haste at which the High Court has dealt with this matter. While the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court and Sessions Court for entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, this Court has time and again observed that High Court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly interfering itself. This approach balances the interests of all the stakeholders, first by giving the aggrieved party a round of challenge before the High Court. Second, this approach provides the High Court an opportunity to assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions Court, in concurrent jurisdiction, instead of independently applying its mind from the first go. Further, the High Court fails to record any reason for directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading the appellant-complainant as a party.

7) Having regard to the abovementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the serious nature of the allegations against accused respondents and the gravity of the offences alleged, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in passing the impugned order granting anticipatory bail to the accused respondents."

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kv1tGXdwMv8Dr4G139JQFLx%2Bbm3kmS4NMFud6bFCZnjQb&caseno=ABLAPL/2474/2026&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010136912026&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.