Patna High Court
Dr. Aparajita Singh @ Aparajita SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is not maintainable where only summons have been issued and no warrant of arrest exists; the application is dismissed as withdrawn.
Summary
Dr. Aparajita Singh filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a private complaint (Case No. 10851/2022) alleging criminal breach of trust (IPC §§406, 34) over a land transaction. She contended that she was falsely implicated and that the FIR made no specific allegation against her. The State argued that cognizance had been taken and that summons, not a warrant, had been issued, so she could appear before the trial court without arrest. The Court examined the Supreme Court’s decision in SLA (Crl.) No.16221/2025 and the provisions of Section 87 of the CrPC, holding that anticipatory bail is not maintainable when only summons are issued and no non‑bailable warrant exists. Consequently, the Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the anticipatory bail application and dismissed it, directing her to appear before the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when only a summons, and not a warrant, has been issued in a private complaint.
- Whether the petitioner can be arrested under a private complaint after cognizance is taken without a non‑bailable warrant.
- Applicability of Supreme Court’s order in SLA (Crl.) No.16221/2025 and Section 87 of the CrPC to the present anticipatory bail application.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 87
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 323, 34, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 87 CrPC
- private complaint
- cognizance
- summons
- non‑bailable warrant
- criminal breach of trust
- land dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2710 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10851 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Dr. Aparajita Singh @ Aparajita Singh D/O Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Singh @
Rajiva Ranjan Kumar Singh @ Rajiv Ranjan Singh Resident Of Mohalla -
Purnendu Pur, P.S- Phulwari Sharif, Dist.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kameshwar Tiwari S/O Late Srikant Tiwari R/O - Adarsh Colony, Road
No.-2, P.S- Phulari Sharif, Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Adv
Ms. Diksha Singh, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
Mr. Ravi Shanker Pankaj, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 08-07-2026 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Bindhyachal Singh; learned APP for the State, Sri Chandra
Bhushan Prasad and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant.
2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection
with Complaint Case No. 10851(c)/2022 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 406 and 34 of Indian Penal
Code.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a woman
and is a doctor. It is next submitted that the complainant alleges
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2710 of 2026(3) dt.08-07-2026
2/7
that she had entered into an agreement with Sangmitra Singh
with respect to a piece of land appertaining to Khata No. 240,
Survey Plot No. 824, Tauzi No. 3102, Thana No 104 at Mauza-
Tara Nagar, for a consideration of an amount of Rs. 78 lakhs, it
is next alleged that complainant had paid two cheques for an
amount of Rs. 4 lakhs and 3 lakhs respectively on different dates
in the year 2012, but Sangmitra Singh sold the said land to
another person hence the instant complaint case came to be
instituted.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case
being daughter of Sangmitra Singh. It is next submitted that
from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that no specific allegation is alleged against the
petitioner.
5. 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, hence the petitioner is
apprehending arrest and thus has moved before this Court
seeking anticipatory bail, it is next submitted that after
cognizance is taken, summons are issued and if petitioner based
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2710 of 2026(3) dt.08-07-2026
3/7
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 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 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 4-7-2025 in ABA No.
2319 of 2025 arising out of Complaint Case No. 6181 of 2021.
It is further 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 of 2025 -
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2710 of 2026(3) dt.08-07-2026
4/7
“ 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.”,
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2710 of 2026(3) dt.08-07-2026
5/7
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 senior 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 Magistrates in
mechanical manner on appearance of the accused based on
summons, relegate them to judicial custody, on which the
learned APP submits that it is difficult to appreciate what has
been submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner as it
cannot be presumed that the learned Magistrate will not
appreciate the orders of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2710 of 2026(3) dt.08-07-2026
6/7
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant also is not in a position to rebut the submission
made by learned APP.
9. At this stage, learned senior counsel for 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 23-4-2026 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 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 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.
10. 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 the liberty to the petitioner to appear before the
learned trial court with an order dated 23-4-2026 in Special
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2710 of 2026(3) dt.08-07-2026
7/7
Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 16221 of 2025 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
11. At this stage, learned senior 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)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.