Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Om Prakash Chhawnika @ Om Prakash … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 April, 2026
SLP(Crl.) No.16221/2025
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.7 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.16221/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
04-07-2025 in ABA No. 2319/2025 passed by the High Court of
Jharkhand at Ranchi]
OM PRAKASH CHHAWNIKA @ OM PRAKASH CHABNIKA
@ OM PRAKASH CHAWNIKA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 23-04-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Kumar Shivam, AOR
Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR
Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv.
Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
O R D E R
Date: 2026.04.23
18:16:08 IST
Reason:
1
SLP(Crl.) No.16221/2025
1. The High Court has denied anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. 6181 of 2021,
instituted at the instance of the Respondent No.2 before us
(original complainant), for the offence punishable under
Sections 323, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B read with 34,
respectively, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the
IPC”).
2. Prima facie, it appears from the allegations levelled in
the complaint and the other materials on record that there is a
dispute between the complainant (Respondent No.2) and the
petitioner (original accused) before us with respect to two
plots of land bearing nos. 1608-1609, respectively, admeasuring
110 kathas.
3. We are not concerned with the case put up by the
complainant at this stage. We are concerned with something
which we should not overlook or ignore. The impugned order
passed by the High Court denying anticipatory bail reads thus:-
“Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. It appears that this petitioner earlier filed an
anticipatory bail application being A.B.A. No. 8063 of
2022 which was disposed of vide
order dated 13.03.2023 with the following directions:
“Petitioner is directed to surrender before the court
below and seek regular bail which shall be disposed
off on its own merits in accordance with the
guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of2
SLP(Crl.) No.16221/2025India in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr reported in 2021
(10) SCC 773.
3. No fresh and new ground has been pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioner for entertaining
this second Anticipatory Bail
Application, therefore, A.B.A No. 2319 of 2025 stands
dismissed.”
4. The High Court, while passing the impugned order, has made
a reference of its earlier order passed in Anticipatory Bail
Application No.8063 of 2022 which came to be disposed of on
13.3.2023.
5. We should also look into this order of 13 th March, 2023,
referred to above. The High Court after looking into the facts
of the matter issued the following directions, which reads
thus:-
“Petitioner is directed to surrender before the court
below and seek regular bail which shall be disposed
off on its own merits in
accordance with the guidelines laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr. reported in 2021(10) SCC 773.”
6. Thus, not only the High Court declined to grant
anticipatory bail as prayed for by the petitioner but also
directed the petitioner to surrender before the Court and seek
regular bail.
3
SLP(Crl.) No.16221/2025
7. 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.
8. In a private complaint when cognizance is taken and process
is issued all that the Court would do is to issue summons. We
have explained many times in the past the purport of Section 87
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.PC.”)
The Section 87 of the Cr.PC. 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
(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.”
9. Section 87 empowers the Court to issue warrant in lieu of,
or in addition to, summons. However, this power has to be
exercised only in two contingencies as explained by the
4
SLP(Crl.) No.16221/2025
provision itself, i.e, (a) and (b), referred to above,
respectively.
10. 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? Police has no power to arrest the
accused in a complaint case unless there is a non bailable
warrant issued by that Court along with the summons.
11. We may give one another simple illustration. Take a case
wherein on a private complaint, the magistrate deems fit to take
cognizance under Section 200 of the Cr.PC. but postpones the
issue of process till the conclusion of the magisterial inquiry
under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. If a magistrate orders a Police
inquiry under Section 202 and asks the police to give a report,
then whether in the course of such inquiry, the police can
arrest the accused. The answer is an emphatic “NO”, Police has
no powers to arrest even during the course of the inquiry under
Section 202 of the Cr.PC.
12. The aforesaid aspects need to be kept in mind by the High
Courts. Unnecessarily anticipatory bail applications are
entertained and when rejected the litigants have to travel all
5
SLP(Crl.) No.16221/2025
the way upto the highest Court of this Country. We also remind
the High Court that the direction issued that the petitioner
should surrender and seek regular bail before the Court was also
wholly without jurisdiction.
13. If the Court wants to reject the anticipatory bail, it may
do so but the Court has no jurisdiction to say that the
petitioner should now surrender.
14. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the
parties that the trial is in progress. In such circumstances,
referred to above, nothing further is required to be done in the
matter. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
15. Registry is directed to forward one copy of this order to
the Registrar General of the High Court of Bihar and also the
Registrar General of the High Court of Jharkhand, respectively
who in turn shall place this order before the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of the respective High Courts.
16. We also impressed upon the learned counsel appearing for
the State to look into this issue and guide the State
accordingly.
17. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition stands
disposed of.
6
SLP(Crl.) No.16221/2025
18. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
7