The Supreme Court of India has ruled that an accused person summoned by a Magistrate in a private complaint does not need to seek anticipatory bail unless a warrant for their arrest has been issued. The bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, observed that the apprehension of arrest is unfounded when a court merely issues a process of summons.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from Complaint Case No. 11328 of 2023, originally filed by Drools Pet Food Private Limited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Following an inquiry, which included the sworn statements of the complainant and two witnesses (Siddarth Raj and Vineet Kumar Rai), the Magistrate passed an order on July 3, 2024. The Magistrate concluded that a prima facie case was made out for offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, against the accused, Himanshu Kumar Verma.
Consequently, the Magistrate issued a summons for Verma to appear. However, Verma approached the High Court of Judicature at Patna seeking anticipatory bail, which was denied on November 3, 2025. Following this rejection, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court expressing a fear of arrest upon his appearance before the Trial Court. The core of the petitioner’s argument was the apprehension that once he appeared before the Judicial Magistrate in compliance with the summons, he would be taken into custody and sent to jail.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court analyzed the Trial Court’s order and questioned the very basis of the petitioner’s legal strategy. The bench remarked, “We fail to understand what necessitated the petitioner to go before the High Court and pray for anticipatory bail in a case arising from a private complaint lodged by the complainant in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.”
The Court clarified that the Magistrate had merely taken cognizance and issued a process under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Rejecting the petitioner’s fears, the Court explicitly stated, “We fail to understand the basis of the apprehension expressed that once the petitioner would appear before the court of the Judicial Magistrate, he would be taken in custody and sent behind bars.”
To further clarify the legal position, the Supreme Court discussed Section 87 of the Cr.P.C., which deals with the “Issue of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons.” The Court explained that Section 87 empowers a Magistrate to issue an arrest warrant only after recording written reasons, specifically if there is reason to believe the person has absconded, will not obey the summons, or fails to appear without a reasonable excuse after being duly served.
The bench observed that the Trial Court had not invoked Section 87. Clarifying when anticipatory bail would be appropriate in such scenarios, the Court noted: “Had the Court issued a warrant for the arrest of the petitioner while taking cognizance and issuing process, then in such circumstances, perhaps the petitioner would have been justified in praying for anticipatory bail, as on the strength of the warrant the police would arrest him.”
Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition, declining to grant anticipatory bail as it was deemed unnecessary. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court in compliance with the issued summons. Furthermore, the Trial Court was directed to “proceed in accordance with Chapter XIV of the Cr.P.C., i.e., cases instituted otherwise than on a police report.” All pending applications were also disposed of.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Himanshu Kumar Verma v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
- Case Number: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1893/2026
- Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
