Bail Rejected by the Sessions Court? Applying for Bail in the Allahabad High Court Under Section 483 BNSS
When a Sessions Court in Uttar Pradesh refuses bail, the usual next step is a bail application before the Allahabad High Court under Section 483 of the BNSS. This article explains how that application works, the notice that must be given to the State and, in some cases, to the informant or victim, the different route in SC/ST Act cases, the factors the High Court weighs, how long it ordinarily takes, and what can be done if the High Court also refuses bail.
When the Sessions Court refuses bail, the next question for the accused and the family is whether the High Court can be approached, and how soon. In Uttar Pradesh, the usual route is a bail application before the Allahabad High Court, at Prayagraj or at the Lucknow Bench depending on the district, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
This article explains how that application works, the notice that must be given before bail is granted, the separate route in cases under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the factors the High Court considers, the time limits the Supreme Court has laid down, and the options that remain if the High Court also refuses bail. It reflects the law as verified on 27 October 2026.
THE POWER OF THE HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 483 BNSS
Section 483(1) of the BNSS empowers the High Court and the Court of Session to direct that a person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and to set aside or modify conditions imposed by a Magistrate when granting bail. The power is shared by both courts. In practice, an accused ordinarily applies to the Sessions Court first and approaches the High Court after the Sessions Court has refused bail.
A bail application in the High Court is not an appeal against the Sessions Court's order. It is a fresh application, and the High Court considers for itself whether bail should be granted. The order of the Sessions Court, and the reasons given in it, are nevertheless placed before the High Court and are usually examined closely.
NOTICE TO THE STATE, THE INFORMANT AND THE VICTIM
The first proviso to Section 483(1) requires the High Court or Court of Session, before granting bail to a person accused of an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session or punishable with imprisonment for life, to give notice of the bail application to the Public Prosecutor, unless it records in writing that giving such notice is not practicable. For offences under Section 65 or Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the second proviso requires notice to the Public Prosecutor within fifteen days of receipt of the application, and Section 483(2) makes the presence of the informant, or a person authorised by the informant, obligatory at the hearing.
In the Allahabad High Court, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 requires notice of a bail application to be given to the Government Advocate before it is heard. A 2018 amendment reduced the minimum period between that notice and the listing of the application from ten days to two. The State is ordinarily represented at the hearing by an Additional Government Advocate.
Where the offence is under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 15A(3) entitles the victim or dependent to reasonable, accurate and timely notice of court proceedings, including bail proceedings, and Section 15A(5) gives the victim or dependent a right to be heard. In Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan, decided on 29 October 2021, the Supreme Court held that these requirements are mandatory.
CASES UNDER THE SC/ST ACT: AN APPEAL, NOT A BAIL APPLICATION
In cases under the SC/ST Act, the route to the High Court is different. Section 14A of that Act provides for an appeal to the High Court against a judgment, sentence or order of the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court, and Section 14A(2) expressly includes an order granting or refusing bail. The remedy against a Special Court's refusal of bail is therefore an appeal under Section 14A, not a fresh bail application under Section 483 BNSS.
On 10 October 2018, a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in In Re: Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, upheld the appeal provision, held that the special statute overrides the general procedure, and struck down the 180-day outer limit for filing such appeals. The Full Bench also observed that the High Court's powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are not ousted, but are to be exercised only in exceptional and rare cases.
WHAT THE HIGH COURT CONSIDERS
The factors relevant to bail were listed by the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, and have since been reiterated, including by a three-judge Bench in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321: whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused committed the offence; the nature and gravity of the accusation; the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released; the character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; the likelihood of the offence being repeated; the reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced; and the danger of justice being thwarted by the grant of bail.
In practice, the High Court also looks at the period already spent in custody, whether the charge-sheet has been filed, the stage of the trial, the role attributed to the accused compared with co-accused who have been granted bail, and any criminal history. An application that addresses the specific reasons given by the Sessions Court for refusing bail is usually more useful than one that only repeats the arguments made there.
Where the offence falls under a special statute with its own bail restrictions, those restrictions continue to apply in the High Court, such as the twin conditions in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 for offences involving commercial quantity and in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Separately, if the charge-sheet is not filed within the period prescribed by Section 187(3) of the BNSS, ninety days for offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for not less than ten years, and sixty days for other offences, the accused becomes entitled to default bail on applying for it and furnishing bail.
HOW LONG IT TAKES
There is no fixed statutory period for deciding a bail application. In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, decided on 11 July 2022, the Supreme Court directed that bail applications ought to be disposed of within two weeks, except where the provisions mandate otherwise, and that anticipatory bail applications are expected to be disposed of within six weeks, in each case subject to any intervening application. In 2023, the Allahabad High Court directed the District and Sessions Judges of Uttar Pradesh to dispose of bail applications within two weeks in compliance with that judgment.
In the High Court itself, the date on which an application is actually heard depends on notice to the State, the filing of a counter affidavit where one is called for, and the court's daily list. A realistic estimate can be given only once the application has been filed and listed.
IF THE HIGH COURT ALSO REFUSES BAIL
A further bail application can be filed, but it must be based on a change in circumstances, such as the filing of the charge-sheet, a long further period in custody, the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused, or the examination of material witnesses. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42, the Supreme Court held that a court hearing a successive bail application must consider the reasons for which the earlier applications were rejected and record the fresh grounds that justify a different view. In Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, (1987) 2 SCC 684, decided on 28 April 1987, the Court held that judicial discipline requires a subsequent bail application to be placed before the same judge who decided the earlier one, if that judge is available.
Alternatively, the order of the High Court refusing bail may be challenged before the Supreme Court by a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. That remedy is discretionary and is considered only in limited circumstances.
AFTER BAIL IS GRANTED
An order granting bail does not by itself secure release. The accused, or the family, must furnish the personal bond and sureties required by the order before the court concerned, usually the trial court, which then issues the release order to the jail. Any conditions in the bail order, such as appearance before the trial court or restrictions on travel, must be complied with, because a breach can lead to cancellation of bail.
DOCUMENTS TO GATHER
The following are usually needed to prepare a bail application before the Allahabad High Court: a copy of the FIR; the order of the Sessions Court refusing bail, preferably a certified copy, together with the bail application filed there; the charge-sheet, if filed; the custody details, including the date of arrest and the period already spent in jail; any bail orders granted to co-accused; details of any criminal history; and, where available, the injury report, post-mortem report or recovery memo relied upon by the prosecution.
PRACTICAL SUMMARY
Once the Sessions Court refuses bail, a bail application can be filed before the Allahabad High Court under Section 483 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC. It is a fresh application, not an appeal. Notice must be given to the State and, in specified offences, the informant or victim has a right to notice and to be heard. In SC/ST Act cases, the remedy is an appeal under Section 14A, not a bail application. The High Court weighs the nature of the accusation, the evidence, the risk of the accused absconding or influencing witnesses, and the period of custody. If bail is refused again, a further application must rest on changed circumstances, and a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court remains available in limited cases. Each case turns on its own facts, and no outcome can be assured.
This article is intended for general information and does not constitute legal advice. The applicable law and the facts of each case should be examined before any action is taken.
Key Authorities Cited
- Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation — Supreme Court of India, 2022-07-11, (2022) 10 SCC 51
- Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee — Supreme Court of India, (2010) 14 SCC 496 (paras 9)
- Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra — Supreme Court of India, (2022) 9 SCC 321
- Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan — Supreme Court of India, (2005) 2 SCC 42
- Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan — Supreme Court of India, 1987-04-28, (1987) 2 SCC 684
- Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan — Supreme Court of India, 2021-10-29
- In Re: Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Full Bench), 2018-10-10, Criminal Writ-PIL No. 8 of 2018
Statutory Provisions
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483 (special powers of the High Court and Court of Session regarding bail; corresponds to Section 439 CrPC)
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 187(3) (default bail where the charge-sheet is not filed in time)
- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 14A (appeal, including against an order granting or refusing bail) and Section 15A(3) and (5) (rights of victims)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 37
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 45
- Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 — Rule 18 (notice of bail applications to the Government Advocate)
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I apply to the Allahabad High Court for bail after the Sessions Court rejects it?
Yes. A bail application can be filed before the Allahabad High Court under Section 483 of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 439 of the CrPC. It is a fresh application, not an appeal, and the High Court decides for itself whether bail should be granted.
Is a High Court bail application an appeal against the Sessions Court order?
No. The High Court and the Court of Session share the power to grant bail under Section 483 BNSS. The High Court considers the matter afresh, although the Sessions Court's order and reasons are placed before it.
What if the case is under the SC/ST Act?
In SC/ST Act cases, an order of the Special Court granting or refusing bail is appealable to the High Court under Section 14A(2) of that Act, so the remedy is an appeal rather than a bail application. The victim or dependent is entitled to notice of the bail proceedings and to be heard, under Section 15A(3) and (5).
How long does the High Court take to decide a bail application?
No statute fixes a period. In Satender Kumar Antil (2022), the Supreme Court directed that bail applications ought to be disposed of within two weeks, and anticipatory bail applications within six weeks, subject to intervening applications. The actual date of hearing depends on notice to the State, any counter affidavit, and the court's list.
Can a second bail application be filed if the High Court rejects bail?
Yes, but it must be based on changed circumstances, such as the filing of the charge-sheet, a long further period in custody or bail granted to similarly placed co-accused. The court must record the fresh grounds for taking a different view, and the application is ordinarily placed before the same judge who decided the earlier one, if available.
What is default bail?
If the charge-sheet is not filed within ninety days (for offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for not less than ten years) or sixty days (for other offences), Section 187(3) of the BNSS entitles the accused to be released on bail on applying for it and furnishing bail.
Sources & References
- Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, 28 April 1987 (Indian Kanoon)
- XXX v. Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, 24 August 2023, quoting the Prasanta Kumar Sarkar factors (Supreme Court of India)
Practice area: Criminal cases at the Allahabad High Court: bail, anticipatory bail and quashing