In the case of Om Prakash Chhawnika vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr, the court in respect to procedural irregularities committed in dealing with anticipatory bail applications, a landmark pronouncement was made by the Supreme Court on April 23, 2026, in State of Jharkhand & Anr. Vs. Chaman Kumar Singh and Anr. The Special Leave Petition was filed against the Jharkhand High Court’s order that refused anticipatory bail to a petitioner and required him to surrender before the trial court for seeking regular bail. This case was misused to pick serious issue from states like so-called Bihar and Jharkhand where judges use to draw illusive bail less jurisdiction in private complaint cases” the Supreme Court observed.
The case background pertains to a private complaint (Complaint Case No. 6181 of 2021) that alleges violations of the Indian Penal Code, specifically cheating and forgery, in connection with a land dispute involving two plots. The petitioner has sought anticipatory bail from the High Court on two occasions. In both cases, the High Court rejected the request; significantly, in the first case, it instructed the petitioner to surrender and seek regular bail following the prescribed guidelines. The Supreme Court examined this instruction, raising the question of why an accused individual would fear arrest by the police in a private complaint, where the court generally only issues summons.
In its ruling, the Court clarified that in cases involving private complaints, the police lack the authority to arrest the accused unless the court explicitly issues a non-bailable warrant in conjunction with the summons. The Court elaborated on the restricted application of Section 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), which permits warrants in place of summons only when the court is convinced that the accused has fled or has not appeared for a valid reason. Moreover, the Supreme Court clearly indicated that High Courts operate “entirely outside their jurisdiction” when they instruct a petitioner to surrender after denying an anticipatory bail request. The bench underscored that if an accused is summoned in a private complaint, they should merely appear and participate in the proceedings instead of overloading higher courts with bail applications.
In the end, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, observing that the trial was already underway. Nevertheless, to rectify these systemic procedural mistakes, the Registry was instructed to send the order to the Registrars General of both the Bihar and Jharkhand High Courts for examination by their respective Chief Justices. The Court’s decision acts as a serious reminder that the breakdown of procedural discipline, including the acceptance of unwarranted bail applications or the issuance of surrender orders beyond jurisdiction, compels litigants to approach the highest court unnecessarily and should be prevented.