2026:JHHC:16491 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1091 of 2025 .... Raman Prasad Verma, aged about 59 years, Son of Late Bishun Mahto, Resident of Village Banshidih, P.O. & P.S. Giridih (M), District-Giridih, State-Jharkhand .… Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. XXX .... Respondents .... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant : Mr. Ayush Deb, Adv. For the State : Mr. S.K.Tiwari, Spl P.P. .... 05/09.06.2026 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl. P.P. 3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Giridh in A.B.P. No.1825 of 2025 in connection with SC./ST (Complaint) Case No.58 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 74, 76, 133, 303(2), 304(2), 308(2) & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(1)(w)(ii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby and whereunder the prayer of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail has been dismissed. The case is presently pending before the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (POA), Giridih. 4. Admittedly, it is a private complaint and only summon has been issued. 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. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 676. The relevant paragraphs i.e. 8 to 12 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— 2026:JHHC:16491 2 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.1091 of 2025 (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.” 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 appellant shall be at liberty to pursue his remedy as mandated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 09.06.2026 Shahid/ Uploaded on 10.06.2026