2026:JHHC:14136 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.966 of 2025 ---- 1. Kishori Mahto (aged about 57 years) son of Late Jadho Mahto. 2. Saryoo Prasad Yadav @ Sarju (aged about 47 years), son of Late Jadho Mahto Both are residents of Village – Chapuwadih, P.O.-Chapuwadih, P.S.- Bengabad, District – Giridh. …. …. Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nakul Ravidas, son of Badri Ravidas, resident of Bengabad, P.O.+P.S.- Bengabad, District – Giridih, Jharkhand. …. …. Respondent ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellants : Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Adv. For the State : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, A.P.P. For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rishav Kumar, Amicus Curiae ---- 07/Dated: 11th May, 2026 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and learned Amicus Curiae. 3. The appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA), Giridih in A.B.P. No.1555 of 2025 in connection with Giridih (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.15 of 2023 corresponding to SC/ST Case No.51 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The case is presently pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih. 4. Reference has been made to the order dated 23.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika @ Om Prakash Chawnika Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2026:JHHC:14136 Page | 2 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.966 of 2025 reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 676. The relevant paragraphs i.e. 8 to 15 are quoted hereinbelow:- “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 in the past the purport of Section 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “the Cr. P.C.”) The Section 87 of the Cr. P.C. 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. P.C. 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. P.C. 12. The aforesaid aspects need to be kept in mind by the High Courts. Unnecessarily anticipatory bail applications are entertained and when rejected the litigants have to travel all the way upto the highest Court of this Country. 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. 13. 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. 14. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the trial is in progress. In such circumstances, referred to above, nothing further is required to be done in the matter. This petition is accordingly disposed of. 15. Registry is directed to forward one copy of this order to the Registrar General of the High Court of Bihar and also the Registrar General of the High Court of Jharkhand, respectively who in turn shall place this order before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the respective High Courts.” 2026:JHHC:14136 Page | 3 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.966 of 2025 5. In that view of the matter, there is no need to entertain the present appeal, accordingly, the present criminal appeal is hereby disposed of. 6. However, the appellants shall be at liberty to participate in the trial proceedings. If such participation is made, and since no warrant has been issued against them, the court below shall consider the same and proceed in accordance with law. 7. The assistance given by Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned amicus curiae, is highly appreciable. 8. Let this order be communicated to the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA, Ranchi, for the purpose of remuneration to be paid to the learned Amicus Curiae as permissible. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 11th May, 2026 Amar/- Uploaded on 12.05.2026