Patna High Court
Sumant Kumar PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is not maintainable where only summons have been issued and no non‑bailable warrant has been issued; the application is dismissed as withdrawn.
Summary
The petitioner, Sumant Kumar Pandey, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 498A IPC, alleging that the complaint was false and that only summons had been issued after cognizance. The State argued that cognizance had been taken, but that the petitioner could avoid arrest by appearing before the trial court on the summons. The learned counsel for the State relied on a recent Supreme Court judgment (SLA (Crl.) No.16221/2025) which held that after issuance of summons, a non‑bailable warrant can be issued only if the accused absconds or fails to appear, and therefore anticipatory bail is not maintainable. The petitioner agreed to withdraw the anticipatory bail application, contending that he would appear before the trial court and produce the Supreme Court order. The Court granted permission to withdraw, dismissed the anticipatory bail application as withdrawn, and directed the petitioner to appear before the trial court with the Supreme Court order.
Issues considered
- Can anticipatory bail be granted when only summons, and not a non‑bailable warrant, have been issued after cognizance in a private complaint under Section 498A IPC?
- Does the petitioner face a risk of arrest before appearing before the trial court after summons are issued?
- Is the Supreme Court’s decision in SLA (Crl.) No.16221/2025 binding on the High Court regarding the issuance of warrants in lieu of summons?
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 87
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 498A
- summons
- cognizance
- non‑bailable warrant
- CrPC Section 87
- private complaint
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15653 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1918 Year-2023 Thana- BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Sumant Kumar Pandey Son of Mr. Bachan Pandey R/o Village - Pokhrahan,
P.S.- Begangola, District - Buxar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Saloni Kumari Wife of Mr. Sumant Kumar Pandey D/o Sanjit Singh @
Ramtapasya Singh, R/o village - Pokhraha, P.S.- Began Bela, District -
Buxar, At present R/o village - Khandaul, P.S.- Sandesh, District - Bhojpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Purushottam Kumar, 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, Mr. Chandra
Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the complainant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the case was referred for mediation but
then mediation failed. It is further submitted that the dispute is
matrimonial and petitioner, being the husband, has been falsely
implicated in the instant case by the complainant. It is next
submitted that complainant instituted Complaint Case No. 1918
of 2023 and the learned Magistrate based on evidence took
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15653 of 2026(3) dt.13-07-2026
2/6
cognizance under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and
summons were issued. It is also submitted that till date the case
is at the stage of summons.
4. 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.
5. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15653 of 2026(3) dt.13-07-2026
3/6
under non-bailable sections, as such, Om Prakash Chhawnika
fearing arrest moved the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court, but
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—
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15653 of 2026(3) dt.13-07-2026
4/6
(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.”
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.”
6. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15653 of 2026(3) dt.13-07-2026
5/6
APP submits that it is difficult to appreciate what has been
submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as it
cannot be presumed that the learned Magistrate will not
appreciate the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this
Court.
7. 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.
8. 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15653 of 2026(3) dt.13-07-2026
6/6
9. Since the petitioner has prayed for withdrawing the
anticipatory bail application at this stage, as such, 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.
10. 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.