Issuance of summons or bailable warrant does not bar anticipatory bail where reasonable arrest apprehension exists.

The applicant, Subhash Chandra, aged 71 years, apprehended arrest in Crime No. 41/2019 registered by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Indore, for offences under Sections 409 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The prosecution case concerned alleged irregularities relating to Kapildhara Wells under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, involving approximately ₹73,221.

The investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed.

Although the trial court initially issued summons, it subsequently issued a bailable warrant against the applicant, who apprehended arrest upon appearing before the court.

He relied on bail orders granted to co-accused persons and submitted that he had no criminal antecedents except cases arising from similar allegations in which he had already been granted bail.

The respondent opposed the application, contending that the issuance of summons and a bailable warrant did not create a reasonable apprehension of arrest warranting anticipatory bail.

1. Whether the applicant had a reasonable apprehension of arrest so as to maintain an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, notwithstanding the issuance of summons followed by a bailable warrant?

2. Whether, after completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in view of his age, the absence of a need for custodial interrogation, and the bail granted to similarly placed co-accused persons?

The Court applied Section 482 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person has reasonable grounds to apprehend arrest for a non-bailable offence.

Section 409 of the IPC was treated as a non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment for life, making the nature and seriousness of the alleged offence relevant to assessing the apprehension of arrest.

The Court considered Asheesh Kumar v. State of U.P., which held that anticipatory bail is ordinarily not maintainable in a complaint case merely because summons or a bailable warrant has been issued, since such process does not ordinarily involve arrest and detention by the police.

It also considered HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J. Mannan and Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, while distinguishing the principles applicable to complaint cases from a case instituted on a police charge-sheet.

The Court further relied on the principles underlying anticipatory bail recognised in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), particularly that the applicant must demonstrate a genuine apprehension of arrest.

The Court held that the authorities relied upon by the respondent primarily concerned private complaint cases and therefore did not conclusively govern the present case, which arose from a police investigation by the Special Police Establishment and culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet.

Although only summons and a bailable warrant had been issued, the Court found a reasonable apprehension of arrest because the applicant was charged with the serious, non-bailable offence under Section 409 IPC and could face arrest upon appearing before the trial court.

The Court also considered that investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

The applicant’s advanced age and the fact that similarly situated co-accused had received bail or anticipatory bail further supported the grant of relief.

The Court directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, trial court, or committal court, as applicable.

The relief was made subject to conditions requiring the applicant to cooperate with interrogation and trial, refrain from influencing witnesses, avoid similar offences, not seek unnecessary adjournments, and not leave India without prior permission.

Violation of any condition would automatically render the order ineffective.