Supreme Court sets aside order by Justice Chandra Prakash Singh, "in a complaint case, there ought not to have arisen any apprehension of the appellant being apprehended by the police..."

In Mukesh Pandit vs. The State of Bihar Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar passed a 6-page long order dated July 13, 2026, wherein, it concluded: "we are constrained to hold that in a Complaint Case, there ought not to have arisen any apprehension of the appellant being apprehended by the police because police has got no role to play in the adjudication of a complaint case, barring the circumstances enumerated supra. 8. That being the position, we set aside the impugned order dated 03.11.2025 and direct that the appellant shall not be arrested in connection with Complaint Case No.747C of 2022, subject to the appellant co-operating with the proceedings of the Complaint Case. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed." 

The appellant had preferred the Criminal Appeal against the impugned order dated 03.11.2025 passed by Justice Chandra Prakash Singh of Patna High Court, rejecting his application for anticipatory bail. It was stated that appellant apprehended his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.747C of 2022 registered under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On the ground that appellant was declared as a proclaimed offender, the prayer for anticipatory bail was turned down by the High Court. From the Record of Proceedings before the Supreme Court, it found that appellant had assailed the order whereby he was declared as a proclaimed offender before the High Court. By the order dated April 24, 2026, the High Court had set aside the order declaring the appellant as a proclaimed offender. 

The Supreme Court referred to its decision  in Om Prakash Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika @ Om Prakash Chawnika vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 16221/2025], wherein, it  considered the prayer for anticipatory bail in the context of a complaint case under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973and held as under:“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. 8. 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  n 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.” 9. 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. 10. 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 11. We may give one another simple illustration. Take a case wherein on a private complaint, the magistrate deems fit to take cognizance under Section 200 of the Cr.PC. but postpones the issue of process till the conclusion of the magisterial inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. If a magistrate orders a Police inquiry under Section 202 and asks the police to give a report, then whether in the course of such inquiry, the police can arrest the accused. The answer is an emphatic “NO”, Police has no powers to arrest even during the course of the inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.PC.” 

The Special Leave to Appeal arose out of impugned 4-page long final order dated November 3, 2025 in CRLM No. 41404/2025 passed by Justice Chandra Prakash Singh of the Patna High Court.