Summons and bailable warrants do not bar anticipatory bail when arrest is reasonably apprehended.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in connection with Crime No. 43/2019, registered for offences under Sections 409 and 120(B) of the IPC and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, concerning alleged irregularities in Kapildhara Wells under the MGNREGA scheme and an amount of ₹7,33,471.

After the charge-sheet was filed, the trial court issued summons and subsequently a bailable warrant.

The applicant apprehended arrest upon appearing before the trial court.

He relied on bail orders granted to co-accused in connected matters and submitted that investigation was complete and that he had been granted bail in other cases arising from the same transaction.

The State opposed the application, arguing that summons and a bailable warrant did not establish a reasonable apprehension of arrest.

1. Whether the applicant had a reasonable apprehension of arrest, notwithstanding that the trial court had issued summons and a bailable warrant after the charge-sheet was filed.

2. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS.

Section 482 of the BNSS provides for anticipatory bail where an applicant has reason to believe that they may be arrested on an accusation of a non-bailable offence.

The Court considered Asheesh Kumar v. State of U.P., which held, in the context of a complaint case, that summons or a bailable warrant ordinarily does not establish an apprehension of arrest and detention; it also noted the stated exception for exceptional circumstances.

The Court distinguished Asheesh Kumar and HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J. Mannan because they arose from private complaints, and treated Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar as factually distinguishable.

The Court also noted that Section 409 of the IPC is non-bailable and punishable with life imprisonment.

Where investigation is complete and custodial interrogation is not required, those circumstances may support pre-arrest bail, subject to the facts of the case.

The Court held that the authorities concerning summons and bailable warrants in complaint cases did not determine the application, which arose from a police investigation by the Special Police Establishment and a charge-sheet alleging, among other offences, Section 409 IPC.

Although only summons and a bailable warrant had issued, the Court found a reasonable apprehension of arrest on the facts, having regard to the seriousness of the alleged offence and the anticipatory bail granted to co-accused Baburam in a related matter.

The investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and custodial interrogation was not required; the applicant had also obtained bail or anticipatory bail in other cases arising from the same transaction.

These circumstances supported granting relief.

The order was made subject to conditions requiring cooperation with interrogation and trial, non-interference with witnesses, no commission of a similar offence, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, and prior permission before leaving India; breach would automatically terminate the order’s effect.