Recently, the Supreme Court clarified that police authorities have no power to arrest an accused in a private complaint case unless a non-bailable warrant has been issued by the competent court along with summons. The Court also expressed concern over the increasing tendency of accused persons in Bihar and Jharkhand to seek anticipatory bail in complaint cases despite the absence of any immediate apprehension of arrest.
The dispute arose out of a private complaint instituted against the petitioner alleging offences under Sections 323, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to a land dispute concerning two plots measuring approximately 110 kathas. The Petitioner had earlier filed an anticipatory bail application before the Jharkhand High Court, which was disposed of with a direction to surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail. Subsequently, a second anticipatory bail application was also rejected on the ground that no fresh circumstances had been made out. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the Apex Court.
The Division Bench Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed serious concern over the manner in which anticipatory bail applications were being entertained in private complaint matters, particularly in Bihar and Jharkhand. The Court observed, “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.”
The Court explained that once cognizance is taken and summons are issued in a complaint case, the accused is only required to appear before the Magistrate and participate in the proceedings. The Bench, while referring to Section 87 of the CrPC, clarified that issuance of warrants in lieu of summons is permissible only in limited circumstances specifically contemplated under law. The Court held that police authorities possess no power to arrest an accused in a complaint case unless a non-bailable warrant is issued by the court concerned.
The Bench further emphasised that even during the course of an inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC, where a Magistrate seeks a police report before issuance of process, the police does not acquire any independent power to arrest the accused. Criticising the practice of directing accused persons to surrender after rejection of anticipatory bail, the Court held that such directions were “wholly without jurisdiction.” The Bench clarified that while a court may reject anticipatory bail, it cannot compel the accused to surrender before the trial court.
Consequently, the Court observed that no further orders were necessary and accordingly disposed of the Special Leave Petition. The Registry was further directed to forward copies of the order to the Registrars General of the High Courts of Bihar and Jharkhand for being placed before the respective Chief Justices, while also requesting the State authorities to appropriately guide law enforcement agencies on the issue.
Case Title: Om Prakash Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika @ Om Prakash Chawnika Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Case No.: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.16221/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Advocates for the Petitioner: AOR Kumar Shivam, Adv. Sameer Ranjan
Advocates for the Respondents: AOR Pallavi Langar, Adv. Pragya Baghel, Adv. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
