Patna High Court
Golu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted when only summons, not a warrant, have been issued after cognizance, and the application was dismissed as withdrawn.
Summary
The petitioner, Golu Kumar, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a complaint case alleging offences under Sections 126(2), 318(4), 64 of the BNS Act and Sections 67, 67A of the IT Act. He claimed the allegations were false, that the relationship with the complainant was consensual, and that the complainant had a history of filing false cases. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner had committed rape by promising marriage and then taking non‑consensual photographs. The court examined the Supreme Court’s decision in SLA (Crl.) No.16221/2025, which clarified that after cognizance only summons, not a warrant, are issued in private complaint cases, and anticipatory bail is not maintainable at that stage. Relying on Section 87 of the CrPC and the Supreme Court precedent, the court allowed the petitioner’s request to withdraw the anticipatory bail application. Consequently, the anticipatory bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn, and the petitioner was directed to appear before the trial court upon receipt of summons, producing the Supreme Court order.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable when only summons have been issued after cognizance in a private complaint case.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 87 CrPC precludes the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage.
- Whether the petitioner’s apprehension of arrest justifies anticipatory bail despite the nature of the allegations.
Legislation cited
- BNS Act — s. 126(2), 318(4), 351(2), 64, 69
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 87
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 67, 67A
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- private complaint
- Section 87 CrPC
- summons vs. warrant
- IT Act offences
- rape allegation
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17820 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9811 Year-2024 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Golu Kumar S/o- Sri Anil Singh Resident of Village- Tulsi Chak Masaurhi
PS- Maner, Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Reshmi Kumari D/o- Sri Satyanand Singh R/v- Chhitrauli Po- Kamla
Gopalpur Ps- Maner Dist- Patna, P/A- Aman Kumar, Mushalehpur Hatt Ps-
Sultanganj Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gauri Shankar Yadav
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
Mr. Satyendra Kumar Bhatnagar
Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha
Mr. Kumar Shivam Sinha
Mr. Raushan Sinha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the OP No. 2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Complaint Case No. 9811 of 2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 318(4) and 64 of the
BNS and Section 67 and 67(A) of the Information and
Technology Act 2000 and cognizance has been taken under
Section 69 and 351(2) of BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17820 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
2/7
submits that the instant anticipatory bail application arises out of
a complaint case. It is next submitted that petitioner is a person
with clean antecedent and the complainant alleges that she came
in contact with the petitioner through Instagram and were in
relationship for the last one year, the petitioner on 6-4-2024
called her to Hotel R-Glory on pretext of meeting his parents
but she refused, thereafter on 26-4-2024 petitioner came to her
home and asked her to accompany him to Marine Drive,
accordingly she after seeking permission of his father
accompanied him, further from Marine Drive he took her to a
Hotel, where his family members were not present and
petitioner put vermillion on her forehead and established
physical relation and said that he will marry her, further
petitioner even took her nude photographs and later resiled from
marrying and threatened that he will make photo viral.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
complainant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
petitioner and the informant were in love. It is further submitted
that relationship was purely consensual between two consenting
adults with no promise of marriage. It is also submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17820 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
3/7
though it is alleged that objectionable photograph of the
complainant was taken but then the same is an exaggerated
allegation as the photo has not been made viral on social media
nor the petitioner is aware of any such photographs. It is next
submitted that complainant alleges that on 26-4-2024, the
petitioner took her to a hotel and established physcial relation
after putting vermillion on her head, but then does not disclose
the name of the Hotel where she was taken on 26-4-2024 in her
solemn affirmation. It is further submitted that petitioner was
completely unaware that the complainant is in habit of
instituting false cases against innocent persons. It is also
submitted that complainant earlier had instituted Complaint
Case No. 8912C of 2023 in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Patna against Ashu Aditya, as would manifest from
Annexure-P/3 to the anticipatory bail application. It is next
submitted that when petitioner came to know about the conduct
of the complainant, he started maintaining the distance, when
the instant false case came to be instituted.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant opposes the anticipatory bail application and
submits that petitioner on false promise of marriage committed
rape of the complainant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17820 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
4/7
6. At this stage, the learned APP, Sri Chandra
Bhushan Prasad, submits that from perusal of the pleadings
made in the anticipatory bail application, it would manifest that
cognizance in the case has been taken and hence the petitioner is
apprehending arrest and thus has moved before this Court
seeking anticipatory bail. It is next submitted that after
cognizance, summons are to be issued and if petitioner based on
the summons appears before the learned trial court, he will not
be arrested rather will join the proceedings before the learned
trial court.
7. Learned APP further submits that Hon’ble
Jharkhand High Court in ABA No. 2319 of 2025 (Om Prakash
Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika @ Om Prakash
Chawnika vs. the State of Jharkhand) had rejected the 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 next 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 then anticipatory bail came to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17820 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
5/7
rejected, thereafter Om Prakash Chhawnika moved before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLA (Crl.) No.16221/2025
assailing the order of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court dated
4-7-2025 in ABA No. 2319 of 2025 arising out of Complaint
Case No. 6181 of 2021. It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme
Court after discussing the case laws on the issue recorded at
para-7 of the order dated 23-4-2026 in SLA (Crl.)
No.16221/2025 recorded-
“ 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.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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17820 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
6/7
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.”
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.”
8. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that only summons have been
issued as such in view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17820 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
7/7
Court dated 23-4-2026 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 after receiving summons the
petitioner will join the proceedings before the learned trial court.
It is also submitted that even the learned Magistrate has to take
note of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on which the
learned APP 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 after receiving summons.
9. Since the petitioner has prayed for withdrawing the
anticipatory bail application at this stage, as such the permission
is accorded and the anticipatory bail application is dismissed as
withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to appear before the
learned trial court after receiving summons along with the order
dated 23-4-2026 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 16221 of
2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.