SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Om Prakash Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika @ Om Prakash Chawnika – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Respondents
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 16221 of 2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-07-2025 in ABA No. 2319 of 2025 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi]
Decided On : 23-04-2026
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 200, 202, 87 and 438 – Anticipatory bail – Denial of – In a private complaint when cognizance is taken and process is issued all that Court would do is to issue summons – Once Court takes cognizance and issues summons, all that accused has to do is to appear before that Court and join the proceeding – Police has no power to arrest accused in a complaint case unless there is a non-bailable warrant issued by that Court along with summons – If Magistrate orders Police inquiry under Section 202 and asks Police to give report, then in course of such inquiry, Police cannot arrest accused – If Court wants to reject anticipatory bail, it may do so but Court has no jurisdiction to say that petitioner should now surrender. (Paras 8, 10, 11 and 13)
Facts of the case:
High Court has denied anticipatory bail to petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. 6181 of 2021, instituted at the instance of the Respondent No.2 (original complainant), for offences punishable under Sections 323, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B read with 34, respectively, of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Registry is directed to forward one copy of this order to the Registrar General of the High Court of Bihar and also Registrar General of High Court of Jharkhand, respectively who in turn shall place this order before Chief Justice of respective High Courts.
Result : Special Leave Petition disposed of with directions.
ORDER
1. The High Court has denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. 6181 of 2021, instituted at the instance of the Respondent No.2 before us (original complainant), for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B read with 34, respectively, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”).
2. Prima facie, it appears from the allegations levelled in the complaint and the other materials on record that there is a dispute between the complainant (Respondent No.2) and the petitioner (original accused) before us with respect to two plots of land bearing nos. 1608-1609, respectively, admeasuring 110 kathas.
3. We are not concerned with the case put up by the complainant at this stage. We are concerned with something which we should not overlook or ignore. The impugned order passed by the High Court denying anticipatory bail reads thus:-
2. It appears that this petitioner earlier filed an anticipatory bail application being A.B.A. No. 8063 of 2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 13.03.2023 with the following directions: "Petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below and seek regular bail which shall be disposed off on its own merits in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr reported in 2021 (10) SCC 773.
3. No fresh and new ground has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner for entertaining this second Anticipatory Bail Application, therefore, A.B.A No. 2319 of 2025 stands dismissed.”
4. The High Court, while passing the impugned order, has made a reference of its earlier order passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No.8063 of 2022 which came to be disposed of on 13.3.2023.
5. We should also look into this order of 13th March, 2023, referred to above. The High Court after looking into the facts of the matter issued the following directions, which reads thus:-
6. Thus, not only the High Court declined to grant anticipatory bail as prayed for by the petitioner but also directed the petitioner to surrender before the Court and seek regular bail.
7. We have noticed that there is a serious problem in two States, viz. the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand, respectively. We fail to understand that in a private complaint how does the Police involve itself or is concerned, in any manner. What was the basis for the accused to express apprehension that the police would arrest them.
8. In a private complaint when cognizance is taken and process is issued all that the Court would do is to issue summons. We have explained many times in the past the purport of Section 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.PC.”) The Section 87 of the Cr.PC. reads thus:-
(a) if, either before the issue of such summons, or after the issue of the same but before the time fixed for his appearance, the Court sees reason to believe that he has absconded or will not obey the summons; or
(b) if at such time he fails to appear and the summons is proved to have been duly served in time to admit of his appearing in accordance therewith and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure.”
9. Section 87 empowers the Court to issue warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons. However, this power has to be exercised only in two contingen
Police has no power to arrest accused in a complaint case unless there is a non-bailable warrant issued by that Court along with summons – If Magistrate orders Police inquiry under Section 202 and as....
In private complaint cases, the police have no power to arrest without a warrant issued by the Magistrate. Courts acts exceeding jurisdiction by directing the accused to surrender when denying antici....
The High Court's jurisdiction in dealing with the application for grant of anticipatory bail is limited to the cause of the concerned applicant, and it is not open to the High Court to add third part....
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted when prior applications have been rejected on merit and there has been non-compliance with Supreme Court directives without any change in circumstances.
The Supreme Court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be misconstrued as a norm and cautioned against granting ad interim relief that essentially provides final outcomes pending full hearing....
The High Court retains discretion to entertain anticipatory bail applications directly, but encourages applicants to first approach the Sessions Court unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.