Police must arrest accused as last resort in Private Compliant cases

Case Title: Om Prakash Chhawnika vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Date of Judgment: April 23, 2026

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

1. The Backstory (The Dispute)

The case originated from a private complaint filed in a trial court in Jharkhand. Unlike a police FIR, this was a "complaint case" where a private individual moved the Magistrate directly, alleging criminal offenses against the petitioner, Om Prakash Chhawnika.

The Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons for the accused to appear. However, fearing that the police might use the pendency of this case to arrest him immediately, the petitioner approached the Jharkhand High Court seeking Anticipatory Bail.

2. The Conflict & Lower Court Action

The Jharkhand High Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea. More importantly, it directed the petitioner to "surrender" before the trial court and apply for regular bail.

This created a legal paradox: Why should a citizen have to "surrender" and seek bail when the court had only issued a summons (a request to appear) and not a warrant for arrest? The petitioner challenged this "surrender" directive in the Supreme Court, arguing it was an unnecessary restriction on his liberty.

3. The Parties

• The Petitioner (Appellant): Om Prakash Chhawnika, who argued that he was being forced into custody without any legal basis, simply because a process was issued against him.

• The Respondents: The State of Jharkhand and the original Complainant, who maintained that the legal process must take its course.

  
  

4. What the Supreme Court Decided

The Supreme Court was critical of how the High Courts of Bihar and Jharkhand were handling these matters.

A. The "No Arrest" Mandate

The Court ruled that in a complaint case, once a Magistrate issues a summons, the police have zero authority to arrest the accused. The police cannot "jump the gun."

"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."

B. The "Surrender" Fallacy

The Bench reprimanded the High Court for ordering the petitioner to surrender. They clarified that if an accused is summoned, they should simply walk into the court and join the proceedings. Forcing them to surrender for "regular bail" is a violation of jurisdiction.

C. Inquiry under Section 202

The Court went a step further to protect citizens during the "inquiry" phase. Sometimes, a Magistrate asks the police to investigate a private complaint before deciding whether to summon the accused (Section 202 CrPC/Section 223 BNSS). The Court held that even during this inquiry, the police cannot arrest the person.

Summary of Legal Logic

Stage	Judicial Order	Police Authority
Magisterial Inquiry	Inquiry ordered (U/S 202)	No Power to Arrest.
Process Issued	Summons Issued	No Power to Arrest. Accused just appears.
Process Evaded	Bailable Warrant	Power to secure bond, not jail.
Last Resort	Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW)	Power to Arrest.

Why this is a "Milestone"

This judgment ends the practice of "anticipatory bail hunger." Previously, thousands of people would rush to High Courts for bail the moment they were summoned in a private case. This ruling tells them: "You don't need bail because you can't be arrested in the first place." It saves the higher judiciary from thousands of unnecessary petitions and protects citizens from the "threat of the handcuffs" in private disputes.