Mere Summons in Complaint Case Not a Passport to Anticipatory Bail – Allahabad High Court

Anticipatory Bail Exists to Protect Against Arbitrary Police Arrest, Not to Avoid Judicial Custody - The Allahabad High Court has made it clear that the mere issuance of summons in a complaint case, even for a non-bailable offence, does not entitle an accused to anticipatory bail.

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal ruled that the legislative intent behind Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is to shield citizens from “unwanted and arbitrary arrest on the part of police or prosecuting agency without warrant” – not to protect them from appearing before a court and facing its lawful custody.

The petitioner, Asheesh Kumar, had been summoned in a private complaint case involving allegations of a non-bailable offence. His counsel argued that summons in such a case naturally create a reasonable apprehension of being taken into custody, and therefore anticipatory bail should be available.

Citing earlier High Court rulings, including Muni Khatoon v. State of Bihar and P.V. Narsimha Rao v. State (CBI), the petitioner urged that there was no distinction in law between police cases and complaint cases when it came to anticipatory bail.

The State countered with a strict reading of Section 482, pointing to the statutory phrase “reason to believe” – defined in Section 2(29) B.N.S.S. – as requiring “sufficient cause to believe… but not otherwise.” Fear alone, it argued, was not belief.

Justice Deshwal agreed, observing: “Mere fear is not belief… the grounds must be capable of being examined objectively by the court.”

The Court stressed that the word “arrest” in Section 482 B.N.S.S. refers specifically to arrest by the police without warrant, and cannot be equated with the “custody” that follows a voluntary appearance before a magistrate in response to summons.

The judgment traced the history of anticipatory bail jurisprudence to the Constitution Bench in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, which underscored that the provision was designed as a safeguard against arbitrary police powers, particularly in false or politically motivated cases.

It also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), and noted that once a non-bailable warrant or proclamation has been issued, anticipatory bail is generally not maintainable except in exceptional circumstances – a principle reiterated in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar in 2024.

In the present case, the High Court found that no warrant – bailable or non-bailable – had been issued against the petitioner. Only summons had been served.

“Summons in a complaint case do not give rise to a presumption of police arrest without warrant,” the Court said, concluding that the application for anticipatory bail was not maintainable.

While rejecting the plea, the Court extended a measure of relief by granting the petitioner 15 days to appear before the trial court and seek regular bail. The magistrate was directed to decide the bail application expeditiously and in accordance with law.

The ruling reinforces a crucial procedural boundary – that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary protection against misuse of police powers, not a shield against the lawful processes of a court.

Date of Decision: 1 August 2025