Can Accused Directly File Successive Bail Pleas In HC On New Material Without Approaching Sessions Court? Allahabad High Court Answers
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a second bail application, or successive bail applications, may be entertained by the HC on the basis of material collected during trial, even though such material was not available to the Sessions Court or the HC when the earlier bail application was rejected.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, however, clarified that in appropriate cases, the HC may direct the applicant-accused to file successive bail applications before the Sessions Court based on new material.
In essence, the Court clarified that while the established practice often requires an accused to approach the Sessions Court first, there is no statutory bar under Section 439 CrPC (or Section 483 BNSS) which prevents the HC from directly considering bail pleas based on new material.
The single judge was essentially dealing with a bail application filed by one Teekam booked in a case of Attempt to murder. At the outset, the bench was faced with two specific questions of law:
- Whether after rejection of bail by Sessions Court on the basis of material available in the case diary, the High Court can entertain the bail application on the basis of material collected during trial though the same was not available before the Sessions Court at the time of rejection of bail application
- Whether the second bail application is maintainable on the basis of evidence collected during trial though at the time of rejection of first bail application by the Sessions Court as well as High Court that material was not available.
The counsel for the applicant as well as amicus curiae, Senior Counsel NI Jafari submitted that the power of HC under Section 439 CrPC/483 BNSS and Sessions Court is concurrent and hence, even the HC can entertain the bail application on any ground, even though the same was not available before the Sessions Court at the time of rejecting the bail application of the accused.
Justice Deshwal accepted this submission as he observed that Section 439 CrPC (Section 483 BNSS) grants special powers to the High Court as well as the Sessions Court to release a person on bail.
"In this Section, it is not mentioned that before approaching the High Court, a person must approach the Sessions Court," the Court noted.
In this regard, the Bench referred to the recent Apex Court judgment in Kamal @ Kamal Choudhary vs.The State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 where the top court had observed that even after the rejection of a first bail application, if subsequent material is collected during the trial, such as the examination of eye witnesses, the accused need not file a second bail application before the Sessions Court.
The ruling clarifies a significant point: an accused is not mandatorily required to approach the Sessions Court again when seeking bail on fresh grounds.
The High Court has held that it can directly entertain a successive bail plea based on new material collected during the trial, such as the testimony of a hostile witness, even if such material was never placed before or taken note of by the Sessions Court at the time of rejecting the earlier bail application.
However, the High Court clarified that it has the discretion to relegate the accused to the Sessions court in appropriate cases.
Applying these principles to the case at hand, the Court noted a material change had happened in the matter.
It noted that while the Sessions Court had rejected Teekam's bail on the basis of allegations in the case diary, the situation changed during the trial, as the injured witness did not support the prosecution's allegation of causing injury and was declared hostile.
Thus, finding merits in the plea, the Court directed that the accused-applicant be released on bail.
Case title - Teekam vs State of UP
Case citation :