Anticipatory Bail Not Maintainable Merely Because Accused Summoned in Private Complaint Fears Judicial Custody: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: Maneesh Vashistha v. Ishwar Singh Yadav and Another
Date of Judgment: 25 August 2026
Citation: CRM-M-23753-2016
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an accused summoned in a private complaint through summons cannot invoke Section 438 Cr.P.C. merely because a non-bailable offence is alleged or because the accused apprehends being taken into judicial custody upon appearing before the Magistrate. Once cognizance is taken and summons are issued in a private complaint, the accused is required to appear and join the proceedings. The police have no authority to arrest such an accused unless the competent court has issued a non-bailable warrant. Consequently, in the absence of any warrant or legally sustainable apprehension of arrest, the Sessions Court’s exercise of anticipatory bail jurisdiction was unwarranted. However, considering that the respondents had appeared before the trial court, furnished bail bonds in 2016, remained on bail for more than a decade and had not misused the concession, the High Court declined to disturb the subsequent order granting them regular bail.
Summary: The petitioner had instituted a private criminal complaint against certain BSNL officials and another person under Sections 406, 409 and 120-B IPC. It was alleged that electricity and diesel from a generator installed at the BSNL Telephone Exchange, Nizampur, had been unauthorisedly used for a private Jagran, thereby causing financial loss to BSNL and amounting to criminal breach of trust and conspiracy. After considering the preliminary evidence, the Magistrate summoned the respondents to face trial. Although only summons had been issued and no warrant of arrest was pending, the respondents approached the Sessions Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on the ground that Section 409 IPC was non-bailable and that they apprehended being taken into custody upon appearing before the Magistrate. The Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail and directed them to appear before the trial court and seek regular bail, following which the Magistrate accepted their bail bonds. The High Court held that apprehension of judicial custody upon appearance cannot, by itself, be equated with an apprehension of arrest so as to attract Section 438 Cr.P.C. In a private complaint where only summons have been issued, the police cannot arrest the accused unless the court also issues a non-bailable warrant. Therefore, the respondents ought to have appeared directly before the Magistrate instead of seeking anticipatory bail. Nevertheless, as they had already submitted to the trial court’s jurisdiction and continued on bail without misuse for over ten years, directing them to surrender afresh would serve no useful purpose.
Decision: The High Court set aside the Sessions Court’s order granting anticipatory bail, holding that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was not warranted. However, the Magistrate’s subsequent order dated 15 February 2016 releasing the respondents on regular bail was left undisturbed.