In a significant ruling addressing a widespread procedural misconception, the Supreme Court highlighted that anticipatory bail applications are often unnecessarily invoked in private complaint cases where the question of police arrest does not ordinarily arise. The Court also expressed concern over High Courts directing accused persons to surrender while rejecting anticipatory bail, terming such directions as beyond jurisdiction.
The case arose from a Special Leave Petition challenging the Jharkhand High Court’s order denying anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with a private complaint alleging offences under various provisions of the IPC, including cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The dispute primarily revolved around two plots of land. The High Court had earlier dismissed a similar anticipatory bail application and, in the impugned order, refused relief again on the ground that no new circumstances had been presented. Additionally, the High Court directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail.
The counsel for the Petitioner contended that the High Court had erred in refusing anticipatory bail and, more importantly, in directing surrender despite the nature of the proceedings being a private complaint where arrest was not imminent. It was argued that such a direction was legally unsustainable. On the other hand, the State and the complainant supported the High Court’s decision, relying on the seriousness of the allegations and the absence of fresh grounds in the second anticipatory bail application.
The Supreme Court, while examining the issue, emphasised that in a private complaint case, once cognizance is taken and process is issued, the court ordinarily issues summons, and not warrants of arrest. The Court clarified that police have no authority to arrest an accused in such cases unless a warrant is issued in accordance with Section 87 of the CrPC. It further explained that even during an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, the police cannot arrest the accused.
In a strong observation, the Court remarked that there is a recurring problem in certain States where anticipatory bail applications are filed without any real apprehension of arrest, leading to unnecessary litigation. The Court observed that once summons are issued, the accused is only required to appear before the court and participate in the proceedings, and there is no justification for approaching higher courts seeking anticipatory bail. Crucially, the Court held that while a High Court may reject an anticipatory bail application, it does not have the jurisdiction to direct the accused to surrender and seek regular bail, terming such directions as legally untenable.
Taking note of the fact that the trial in the present case was already in progress, the Supreme Court found that no further intervention was required and disposed of the Special Leave Petition. However, recognising the broader legal issue involved, the Court directed that a copy of its order be forwarded to the High Courts of Bihar and Jharkhand for appropriate consideration. The State was also advised to take note of the issue and guide its authorities accordingly.
Case Title: Om Prakash Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 16221/2025
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Mr. J.B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Justice Mr. Ujjal Bhuyan
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): AOR Kumar Shivam, Adv. Sameer Ranjan.
Counsel for the Respondent(s): AOR Pallavi Langar, Adv. Pragya Baghel, Adv. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey.
Picture Source :
