The Supreme Court has clarified that High Courts do not have the jurisdiction to direct a petitioner to surrender before a lower court and seek regular bail after denying an anticipatory bail application. A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that such directions are “wholly without jurisdiction” and noted a “serious problem” in the States of Bihar and Jharkhand regarding the handling of anticipatory bail in private complaint cases.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Om Prakash Chhawnika, approached the Supreme Court challenging an order dated July 4, 2025, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. The High Court had denied him anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 6181 of 2021 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The case originated from a private complaint involving a land dispute over two plots (Nos. 1608-1609) admeasuring 110 kathas. The High Court dismissed the petitioner’s second anticipatory bail application (A.B.A. No. 2319 of 2025) on the grounds that no fresh or new points were raised since the disposal of his first application (A.B.A. No. 8063 of 2022) on March 13, 2023.
Arguments and High Court’s Earlier Order
In the first anticipatory bail application, the High Court had directed the petitioner “to surrender before the court below and seek regular bail,” which was to be disposed of in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2021). The High Court relied on this previous direction while dismissing the subsequent application.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court focused on the procedural propriety of the High Court’s directions. The Bench highlighted two critical legal concerns:
1. No Power of Arrest in Private Complaints The Court questioned why anticipatory bail applications are even being entertained in private complaint cases where process has been issued. Referring to Section 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), 1973, the Court explained:
“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… 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.”
The Bench further illustrated that even during a police inquiry ordered under Section 202 of the Cr.PC, the police have an “emphatic NO” power to arrest.
2. Jurisdiction Regarding Surrender Orders The Bench took strong exception to the High Court’s mandate for the accused to surrender. The Court observed:
“We also remind the High Court that the direction issued that the petitioner should surrender and seek regular bail before the Court was also wholly without jurisdiction. If the Court wants to reject the anticipatory bail, it may do so but the Court has no jurisdiction to say that the petitioner should now surrender.”
The Supreme Court noted that these unnecessary applications lead to litigants traveling to the highest court of the country due to procedural misunderstandings at the High Court level.
Decision of the Court
Given that the trial is currently in progress, the Supreme Court held that nothing further was required to be done in the specific matter. However, it issued directives to ensure procedural corrections in the future:
- The Registry was directed to forward the order to the Registrars General of the High Courts of Bihar and Jharkhand.
- The Chief Justices of the respective High Courts are to be informed of these observations.
- Counsel for the State was impressed upon to “look into this issue and guide the State accordingly.”
The Special Leave Petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Om Prakash Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika @ Om Prakash Chawnika v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Case No.: SLP(Crl.) No.16221/2025
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Date: 23-04-2026
