New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that in cases arising from private complaints, the police have no power to arrest an accused unless a non-bailable warrant has been issued by the concerned court. It further held that High Courts ought not to entertain anticipatory bail applications in such matters. The Court also clarified that when anticipatory bail is rejected, the court has no jurisdiction to direct the accused to surrender.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order on April 23, 2026, while disposing of a Special Leave Petition filed by Om Prakash Chhawnika, challenging an order of the Jharkhand High Court dated July 4, 2025. The High Court had denied him anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 6181 of 2021. The case involved allegations of offences under Sections 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, arising out of a dispute over two plots of land bearing Nos. 1608 and 1609, admeasuring 110 kathas.
The petitioner had earlier filed an anticipatory bail application, being ABA No. 8063 of 2022, before the Jharkhand High Court. The same was disposed of on March 13, 2023, with a direction to surrender before the court below and seek regular bail in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773. Subsequently, when the petitioner filed a fresh anticipatory bail application (ABA No. 2319 of 2025), the High Court dismissed it on the ground that no new or fresh grounds had been made out to entertain a second application. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Bench noted what it described as a serious problem prevalent in the States of Bihar and Jharkhand, where anticipatory bail applications are being entertained in private complaint cases, leading to unnecessary litigation reaching the highest court of the country.
The Court explained that when cognizance is taken on a private complaint and process is issued, the court would ordinarily issue summons. The power to issue a warrant in lieu of or in addition to summons under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is circumscribed and may be exercised only in two contingencies: where the court has reason to believe that the accused has absconded or is unlikely to obey the summons, or where the accused fails to appear despite due service of summons and offers no reasonable excuse.
“Once the Court takes cognizance and issues summons, all that the accused has to do is to appear before that Court and join the proceedings. Why should the accused go before the Sessions Court or the High Court, as the case may be, and pray for anticipatory bail? The police have no power to arrest the accused in a complaint case unless a non-bailable warrant is issued by that Court along with the summons,” the Bench observed.
The Court also addressed the position during a magisterial inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, holding that even where a Magistrate orders a police inquiry and directs submission of a report, the police have no power to arrest the accused during such inquiry.
The Bench further found fault with the Jharkhand High Court’s earlier order dated March 13, 2023, which had directed the petitioner to surrender and seek regular bail while dismissing his anticipatory bail application.
“We also remind the High Court that the direction issued, requiring the petitioner to surrender and seek regular bail, was wholly without jurisdiction. If the Court wants to reject anticipatory bail, it may do so, but it has no jurisdiction to direct that the petitioner should surrender,” the Court stated.
Noting that the trial was already in progress, the Court observed that no further directions were required and disposed of the petition accordingly.
The Bench directed its Registry to forward a copy of the order to the Registrar General of the High Court of Bihar and the Registrar General of the High Court of Jharkhand, with a direction that it be placed before the respective Chief Justices. The Court also impressed upon the counsel appearing for the State to look into the issue and guide the State accordingly.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Om Prakash Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika @ Om Prakash Chawnika v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
- Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 16221 of 2025
- Arising From: ABA No. 2319 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Order dated July 4, 2025)
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
- Date of Order: April 23, 2026
- Petitioner’s Advocates: Mr. Kumar Shivam, AOR; Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Advocate
- Respondents’ Advocates: Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR; Ms. Pragya Baghel, Advocate; Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Advocate
