Anticipatory bail is not maintainable upon issuance of summons for a non-bailable offence unless there is reasonable apprehension of police arrest without warrant.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. This matter was heard on 18.06.2025. On that date, a preliminary objection was raised by Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A. that present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable as same is filed merely on issuance of summon in complaint case. On issuance of a summons, the applicant has no reason to believe that he may be arrested unless non- bailable warrant is issued in complaint case. The above preliminary objection raised by learned A.G.A. was vehemently opposed by Sri Abhishek Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Therefore, this Court after releasing the applicant on interim bail reserved the judgement on the issue whether anticipatory bail is maintainable merely on issuance of summons in the complaint case wherein the accusation is regarding the non-bailable offence.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on issuance of a summons in a complaint case wherein there is an allegation of committing a non-bailable offence against the applicant, the applicant has reasonable apprehension that on his appearance before the Court, he may be taken into custody by the court which would also fall in the category of apprehension of arrest as the object of custody or arrest is of curtailing the personal liberty of a person. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of Patna High Court in the case of Muni Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar and others , 2017 SCC Online Pat 3808, as well as the judgement of Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of P.V. Narsimha Rao Vs. State (CBI), 1997 (40) DRJ (DB) wherein the Patna High Court and the Delhi High Court have observed that power to release a person on anticipatory bail cannot be curtailed and this principle applies equally to both complaint cases as well as State cases.

3. Per contra, Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the words ‘reason to believe’ in Section 482 B.N.S.S. does not mean mere ‘fear’ and it must be founded on a reasonable ground and custody of the court cannot be equated with the arrest by the police. It is further submitted by learned A.G.A. that criminal enactment should be interpreted strictly, not liberally, as beneficial legislation.

4. After hearing the above submission, the legal question which arises is whether the anticipatory bail is maintainable during the proceeding of complaint case ? To decide this issue, it would be beneficial to reproduce Section 482 B.N.S.S. regarding anticipatory bail. Section 482 B.N.S.S. (corresponding Section 438 Cr.P.C.) is being quoted as under :-

Section 482 B.N.S.S. :-

1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.

(2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including—

(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by