2026:JHHC:21328 1 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 12 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 12 of 2025 1.Pandey Om Prakash Sharma @ Omprakash Sharma aged about 61 years S/o– Late Pandey Hiranand Sharma @ Late Hiranand Sharma; 2.Pandey Prem Prakash Sharma @ Prem Prakash Sharma aged about 63 years S/o – Late Hiranand Pandey @Late Hiranand Sharma; 3.Pandey Suryakant Sharma @ Suryakant Sharma aged aboiut 57 years S/o Amarnath Pandey @ Amarnath Sharma; 4.Shreekant Sharma @ Srikant Sharma aged about 49 years S/o – Amarnath Pandey @ Amarnath Sharma; All 1 to 4 are R/o Village- Bansani, P.O.+P.S.- Bhawnathpur, District- Garhwa …....... Appellant(s) Vrs. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Basanti Devi wife of Late Manu Singh 3.Birendra Singh 4.Harinandan Singh 5. Brij Kishore Singh 6. Uma Shankar Singh 7. Ravi Shankar Singh All 3 to 6 S/o Late Manu Singh, All are residence of Village Bansani, P.O. Jhagdabaar, P.S. Bhawnathpur & District- Garhwa ........ Respondent(s) ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gopal Krishna Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. For Resp. No. 2 to 7 : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Aaryaman Relan, Advocate 12/20.07.2026 The present appeal has been filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions 1-cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Garhwa in A.B.P. No. 870 of 2024 arising out of Complaint Case No. 16 of 2020 whereby and where under the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellants has been rejected. 4. Admittedly, it is a private complaint. 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 @ 2026:JHHC:21328 2 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 12 of 2025 Om Prakash Chawnika Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 676. The relevant paragraphs i.e. 7 to 12 are quoted herein below: “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 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.” 2026:JHHC:21328 3 Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 12 of 2025 5. Prima facie, it appears that the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and as such prayer for anticipatory bail is not maintainable before this Court. 6. In that view of the matter, the present criminal appeal is hereby, disposed of giving liberty to the appellants to approach the learned Trial Court for participation in the trial. 7. The Trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law as declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 20.07.2026 A. Mohanty Uploaded ____/____/2026