Court clarifies limits on police powers in private complaints; criticises High Courts for entertaining unnecessary anticipatory bail pleas
The Supreme Court has held that police cannot arrest an accused in a private complaint case unless the court issues a non-bailable warrant along with summons.
The Court passed the order in Om Prakash Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika @ Om Prakash Chawnika v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 16221/2025.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order on April 23, 2026.
The matter arose from Complaint Case No. 6181 of 2021.
The complaint alleged offences under Sections 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The dispute concerned two plots of land measuring 110 kathas. The dispute was between the complainant and the accused.
The petitioner had approached the Jharkhand High Court for anticipatory bail.
The High Court rejected the plea. It noted that the petitioner had already filed an earlier anticipatory bail application.
In that earlier order, the High Court had directed the petitioner to surrender and seek regular bail. The Court gave that direction in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773.
The High Court later dismissed the second anticipatory bail application. It held that the petitioner had not raised any new ground.
The High Court also repeated its earlier direction. It required the petitioner to surrender before the trial court.
Before the Supreme Court, the issue did not turn on the merits of the complaint.
The Court examined the legality of the High Court’s approach. It considered whether the High Court could deny anticipatory bail and direct surrender in a private complaint case.
The Supreme Court noted a “serious problem” in Bihar and Jharkhand. It said accused persons in private complaint cases often fear unnecessary arrest.
The Supreme Court held that once a court takes cognizance and issues summons, the accused only needs to appear before the court.
The police do not get power to arrest the accused merely because a complaint case is pending.
The Court said an anticipatory bail application becomes unnecessary in such a situation.
The Supreme Court referred to Section 87 of the CrPC.
It said a court may issue a warrant in place of, or in addition to, summons only in specific situations.
These situations include a likelihood that the accused may abscond. They also include failure to appear despite service of summons.
The Court also clarified the position during an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC.
It held that police cannot arrest the accused even during such an inquiry.
The Bench categorically held that police have no power to arrest an accused in a complaint case unless the court issues a non-bailable warrant.
The Bench also criticised High Courts for entertaining anticipatory bail pleas in such cases.
It observed that such proceedings create avoidable litigation. The Court said these matters then reach the Supreme Court unnecessarily.
The Supreme Court further held that the High Court acted without jurisdiction when it directed the petitioner to surrender and seek regular bail.
It clarified that a court may reject anticipatory bail. However, it cannot compel surrender as a condition or consequence of rejecting such a plea.
The Supreme Court noted that the trial in the complaint case had already begun.
For that reason, it declined to pass further substantive orders. The Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition.
The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Registrar General of the High Courts of Bihar and Jharkhand.
It directed the Registrars General to place the order before the respective Chief Justices.
The Bench also requested State counsel to guide the authorities properly on the issue.
The Supreme Court disposed of all pending applications.
