Sumant Kumar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15653 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1918 Year-2023 Thana- BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Sumant Kumar Pandey Son of Mr. Bachan Pandey R/o Village - Pokhrahan, P.S.- Begangola, District - Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Saloni Kumari Wife of Mr. Sumant Kumar Pandey D/o Sanjit Singh @ Ramtapasya Singh, R/o village - Pokhraha, P.S.- Began Bela, District - Buxar, At present R/o village - Khandaul, P.S.- Sandesh, District - Bhojpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the case was referred for mediation but then mediation failed. It is further submitted that the dispute is matrimonial and petitioner, being the husband, has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the complainant. It is next submitted that complainant instituted Complaint Case No. 1918 of 2023 and the learned Magistrate based on evidence took
2/6 cognizance under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and summons were issued. It is also submitted that till date the case is at the stage of summons.
4. At this stage, Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that from perusal of the pleadings made in the anticipatory bail application, it would manifest that cognizance in the case has been taken, hence, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest and, thus, has moved before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that after cognizance is taken, summons are issued and if petitioner based on the summons appears before the learned trial court, the petitioner will not be arrested, rather will join the proceedings before the learned trial court.
5. Learned APP next submits that Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in A.B.A. No. 2319 of 2025 (Om Prakash Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika @ Om Prakash Chawnika Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.) had rejected the anticipatory bail of Om Prakash Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika @ Om Prakash Chawnika in connection with Complaint Case No. 6181 of 2021 whereby cognizance was taken under Sections 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the IPC. It is also submitted that cognizance in Complaint Case No. 6181 of 2021 was taken
3/6 under non-bailable sections, as such, Om Prakash Chhawnika fearing arrest moved the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, but then his anticipatory bail came to be rejected. Thereafter, Om Prakash Chhawnika moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLA (Crl.) No. 16221 of 2025 assailing the order of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court dated 04.07.2025 in A.B.A. No. 2319 of 2025 arising out of Complaint Case No. 6181 of 2021. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after discussing the case laws on the issue recorded at para-7 of the order dated 23.04.2026 in SLA (Crl.) No. 16221 of 2025 -- "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.", thereafter at para-8, it is recorded -- "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.PC.") The Section 87 of the Cr.P.C. reads thus:- "87. Issue of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons.
4/6 (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."
At para-9, it is recorded -- "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."
It is further submitted that at para-10 it is recorded-- "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."
6. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that no doubt the law on the issue is clear as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but then in practice in the State of Bihar, the learned Magistrate in a mechanical manner on appearance of the accused based on summons, relegate them to judicial custody, on which learned
5/6 APP submits that it is difficult to appreciate what has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as it cannot be presumed that the learned Magistrate will not appreciate the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant also is not in a position to rebut the submission made by learned A.P.P. for the State.
8. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly submits that since only summons have been issued in the case, as such, in view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23.04.2026 in SLA (Crl.) No. 16221/2025, the instant anticipatory bail application is not maintainable at this stage, hence, seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application and submits that the petitioner will appear before the learned trial court and will join the proceedings. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate also has to take note of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on which the learned A.P.P. submits that it is the duty of the petitioner to ensure that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is also produced at the time when the petitioner appears before the learned trial court.
6/6
9. Since the petitioner has prayed for withdrawing the anticipatory bail application at this stage, as such, permission is accorded and the anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to appear before the learned trial court with an order dated 23.04.2026 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 16221 of 2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that till date non-bailable warrant of arrest has not been issued against the petitioner. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T