Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Himanshu Kumar Verma vs The State Of Bihar on 9 February, 2026
SLP(Crl.) No. 1893/2026
ITEM NO.81 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1893/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-11-2025
in CRLM No. 16069/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna]
HIMANSHU KUMAR VERMA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 34210/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 34208/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 09-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR
Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The petitioner has been denied anticipatory bail by the
High Court of Patna in connection with Complaint Case No. 11328
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2026.02.12
12:26:19 IST
Reason: 1
SLP(Crl.) No. 1893/2026
of 2023 filed in the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and
420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”),
respectively.
2. We fail to understand what necessitated the petitioner to
go before the High Court and pray for anticipatory bail in a
case arising from a private complaint lodged by the complainant
in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
3. The order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance upon
the private complaint, reads thus:-
“Order
Date 03/07/2024
Appearance was marked on behalf of the Complainant.
Records were produced before the Court for Order.
Heard. Records were examined. It is apparent from the
examination of the records that the present complaint
was filed by Drools Pet Food Private Limited before the
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Sections 403,
406, 409, 415, 420, 468, 467, 499, 120B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. Records transferred from the Learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate was received by this Court.
During the inquiry the complainant has submitted his
sworn statement and two witnesses namely 1. Siddarth
Raj and 2. Vineet Kumar Rai have been presented before
this court as evidence for inquiry. The complainant and
the two witnesses have supported the occurrence of such
event during the inquiry.
On perusal of the complaint petition, the deposition
of witnesses and the documents filed on behalf of the
complainant, a prima facie case of offences punishable
under section 406 and 420 of the IPC appears to be made
out against the accused Himanshu Kumar Verma (as) named
in the complaint petition. Therefore, an order to issue
summon against Himanshu Kumar Verma is pronounced.
2
SLP(Crl.) No. 1893/2026
The office is directed that upon filing of necessary
requisitions by the Complainant; the office shall issue
summon to the accused.
Date 18/07/2024 is set for filing process fee.”
4. The plain reading of the order, referred to above, would
indicate that the magistrate took cognizance upon the complaint and
issued process under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”). Once summons is issued, the petitioner
has to appear before the court concerned. We fail to understand the
basis of the apprehension expressed that once the petitioner would
appear before the court of the Judicial Magistrate, he would be
taken in custody and sent behind bars.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the court concerned in
pursuance of the summons issued by the court of the Magistrate,
referred to above. Thereafter, it is for the court concerned to
proceed further in accordance with the provision of the Cr.P.C.
6. At this stage, we may give a fair idea as regards the
provisions of Section 87 of the Cr.P.C. Section 87 reads thus:-
“87. Issue of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to,
summons.—A Court may, in any case in which it is empowered
by this Code to issue a summons for the appearance of any
person, issue, after recording its reasons in writing, a
warrant for his arrest—
(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
3
SLP(Crl.) No. 1893/2026
(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.”
7. Section 87 provides that the court may, while issuing summons
for the appearance of any person, issue a warrant for his arrest
for the reasons to be recorded in writing. Such warrant of arrest
can be issued in two contingencies as explained in (a) and (b)
respectively. In the case at hand, while issuing summons, the Court
has not taken recourse to Section 87 of the Code. Had the Court
issued a warrant for the arrest of the petitioner while taking
cognizance and issuing process, then in such circumstances, perhaps
the petitioner would have been justified in praying for
anticipatory bail, as on the strength of the warrant the police
would arrest him.
8. The Trial Court shall now proceed in accordance with Chapter
XIV of the Cr.P.C., i.e., cases instituted otherwise than on a
police report.
9. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed
of.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
4