Patna High Court
Yash AgrawalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is not maintainable at the stage where only summons have been issued; the application is dismissed as withdrawn.
Summary
Petitioner Yash Agrawal, fearing arrest in a private complaint under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC, filed an anticipatory bail application before the Patna High Court. The State argued that cognizance had been taken and summons issued, so the petitioner could simply appear before the trial court and would not be arrested. The Court referred to a recent Supreme Court judgment stating that when only summons are issued, the power to arrest arises only if a non‑bailable warrant is issued under Section 87 CrPC, and therefore anticipatory bail is not maintainable at this stage. Acknowledging this precedent, the petitioner sought to withdraw the anticipatory bail application. The Court permitted the withdrawal and dismissed the anticipatory bail application, directing the petitioner to appear before the trial court with the Supreme Court order.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when only summons, and not a non‑bailable warrant, have been issued after cognizance in a private complaint.
- Whether the police can arrest the accused in the absence of a warrant under Section 87 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 87
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498A, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- private complaint
- summons
- Section 87 CrPC
- non‑bailable offence
- withdrawal of application
- Patna High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12537 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6272 Year-2024 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Yash Agrawal S/o Late Vishnu Agrawal Resident of - Balajee Faison, Dujra
Chowk, P.S - Budha Colony, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priya Kumari D/o Late Rajaram Choudhary R/o Mohalla - Sipara, Bela
Dupulwa, P.S - Jakkanpur, District - Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alka Panday, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 13-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. No one appears on behalf of the complainant.
3. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323
and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner, being the husband, has been
falsely implicated in the instant case by the complainant. It is
further submitted that the complainant filed Complaint (P) Case
No. 6272 of 2024 under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code and the learned trial court took cognizance
and thereafter issued summons. It is next submitted that the case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12537 of 2026(3) dt.13-07-2026
2/6
till date is pending at the stage of summons.
5. At this stage, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned
A.P.P. for the State submits that from perusal of the pleadings
made in the anticipatory bail application, it would manifest that
cognizance in the case has been taken, hence, the petitioner is
apprehending his arrest and, thus, has moved before this Court
seeking anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that after
cognizance is taken, summons are issued and if petitioner based
on the summons appears before the learned trial court, the
petitioner will not be arrested, rather will join the proceedings
before the learned trial court.
6. Learned APP next submits that Hon’ble Jharkhand
High Court in A.B.A. No. 2319 of 2025 (Om Prakash
Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika @ Om Prakash Chawnika
Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.) had rejected the anticipatory
bail of Om Prakash Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika @ Om
Prakash Chawnika in connection with Complaint Case No. 6181
of 2021 whereby cognizance was taken under Sections 323,
420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the IPC. It is also submitted
that cognizance in Complaint Case No. 6181 of 2021 was taken
under non-bailable sections, as such, Om Prakash Chhawnika
fearing arrest moved the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court, but
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12537 of 2026(3) dt.13-07-2026
3/6
then his anticipatory bail came to be rejected. Thereafter, Om
Prakash Chhawnika moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
by filing SLA (Crl.) No. 16221 of 2025 assailing the order of the
Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court dated 04.07.2025 in A.B.A. No.
2319 of 2025 arising out of Complaint Case No. 6181 of 2021.
It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court after
discussing the case laws on the issue recorded at para-7 of the
order dated 23.04.2026 in SLA (Crl.) No. 16221 of 2025 --
“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.”,
thereafter at para-8, it is recorded --
“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.P.C. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12537 of 2026(3) dt.13-07-2026
4/6
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.”
At para-9, it is recorded --
“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 provision itself, i.e, (a) and (b) referred to above
respectively.”
It is further submitted that at para-10 it is
recorded--
“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.”
7. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that no doubt the law on the
issue is clear as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court but then
in practice in the State of Bihar, the learned Magistrate in a
mechanical manner on appearance of the accused based on
summons, relegate them to judicial custody, on which learned
APP submits that it is difficult to appreciate what has been
submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12537 of 2026(3) dt.13-07-2026
5/6
cannot be presumed that the learned Magistrate will not
appreciate the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this
Court.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant also is not in a position to rebut the submission
made by learned A.P.P. for the State.
9. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner fairly submits that since only summons have
been issued in the case, as such, in view of the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23.04.2026 in SLA (Crl.) No.
16221/2025, the instant anticipatory bail application is not
maintainable at this stage, hence, seeks permission to withdraw
the anticipatory bail application and submits that the petitioner
will appear before the learned trial court and will join the
proceedings. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate also
has to take note of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on
which the learned A.P.P. submits that it is the duty of the
petitioner to ensure that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
is also produced at the time when the petitioner appears before
the learned trial court.
10. Since the petitioner has prayed for withdrawing
the anticipatory bail application at this stage, as such,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12537 of 2026(3) dt.13-07-2026
6/6
permission is accorded and the anticipatory bail application is
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to appear
before the learned trial court with an order dated 23.04.2026 in
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 16221 of 2025 passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
11. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that till date non-bailable warrant of
arrest has not been issued against the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.