2026:JHHC:22430 1 Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.876 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.876 of 2025 ---- 1. Bharat Prasad, aged about 67 years, S/o Bhagelu Mahto 2. Radhakrishna Mahto @ Bachchan Mahto, aged about 48 years, S/o Late Jagpat Mahto 3. Ashok Mahto, aged about 52 years, S/o Late Jagpat Mahto 4. Ajit Kumar @ Ajit Kr. Kushwaha, aged about 33 years, S/o Ashok Mahto 5. Satyanarayan Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Singh All are resident of Village Janakpuri Tandwa, Narayanpur P.O. + P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa (Jharkhand) …. …. Appellant(s) -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rajiv Ranjan @ Rajiv Ranjan Kumar, Son of Baijnath Ram, resident of Tandwa Mohalla Main Road, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa …. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellants : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, A.P.P ---- 07/Dated: 29th July, 2026 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. In spite of valid service of notice, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2. 3. Heard Mr. Sabyasanchi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the State. 4. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act cum Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa in A.B.P. No.595 of 2025 in connection with Complaint Case No.06 of 2019, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 386, 387/511, 120(B), 504, & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case is present pending in the court of learned Special Judge SC/ST Act cum Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa. 2026:JHHC:22430 2 Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.876 of 2025 5. 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 @ 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:22430 3 Criminal Appeal (S.J) No.876 of 2025 6. Prima facie, it appears that the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. In that view of the matter, the present criminal appeal is hereby, disposed of giving liberty to the appellants to approach the Trial Court for participation in the trial and the Trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law. 8. With the above observation and direction, the present criminal appeal stands disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 29th July, 2026 Raja/- Uploaded on 30.07.2026