The Supreme Court has held that in a private complaint case filed before a judicial magistrate, an accused need not seek anticipatory bail once the magistrate takes cognizance of the complaint and issues summons.
Why did the Supreme Court say anticipatory bail is not required in a private complaint case?
16221 of 2025, where it had clarified that the police have virtually no role to play in a private complaint case.
The earlier judgment had observed:"We fail to understand that in a private complaint how does the Police involve itself or is concerned, in any manner.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Patna High Court's order refusing anticipatory bail.
The Supreme Court has held that in a private complaint case filed before a judicial magistrate, an accused need not seek anticipatory bail once the magistrate takes cognizance of the complaint and issues summons.
A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Arun Palli explained the legal position while allowing an appeal filed by Ram Pukar Yadav and another against a May 5, 2026 judgment of the Patna High Court, which had refused them anticipatory bail in a private complaint pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Madhubani, Bihar.
Why did the Supreme Court say anticipatory bail is not required in a private complaint case?
Court relied on its earlier decision in SLP (Crl.) No. 16221 of 2025, where it had clarified that the police have virtually no role to play in a private complaint case.
Referring to that judgment, the Bench noted that the court had earlier expressed concern over the practice followed in Bihar and Jharkhand, observing that it failed to understand why an accused in a private complaint would apprehend arrest by the police.
The earlier judgment had observed:
"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."
The Supreme Court reiterated that once a magistrate takes cognisance of a private complaint and issues summons, the accused is only required to appear before the magistrate and participate in the proceedings.
Court emphasised that the police have no power to arrest an accused in such cases merely because summons have been issued. Arrest can take place only if the court subsequently issues a non-bailable warrant.
The bench recalled its earlier observation:
"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."
Can the police arrest an accused during a magistrate's inquiry?
The Supreme Court answered this question in the negative.
Explaining the position with an illustration, the Bench referred to a situation where a magistrate, after taking cognisance under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [corresponding to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)], postpones the issuance of process and directs a police inquiry under Section 202.
Court said that even if the police are asked to submit a report under Section 202, they do not acquire the power to arrest the accused during the course of that inquiry.
The earlier judgment had categorically held that the answer is an emphatic "No", as the police have no power to arrest an accused even while conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC.
Relying on the same principle, the Bench said, "That being the position, there is no question of the petitioners being taken into custody by the police."
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Patna High Court's order refusing anticipatory bail.
Case Title: Ram Pukar Yadav & Anr Vs The State of Bihar & Anr
Bench: Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Arun Palli
Date of Judgment: June 16, 2026
