Putul Rai @ Putul Devi v. State of Bihar Anticipatory Bail - Direction To Surrender

Extracted Information

Case name and neutral citation:Putul Rai @ Putul Devi v. The State of Bihar & Anr.Neutral citation is not mentioned in the extracted pages of the order.

Coram:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj MisraHon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan

Judgment / Order date:05-05-2026 (date when the matter was heard and order passed by the Supreme Court).

Caselaws and citations referred:

1. Om Prakash Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika @ Om Prakash Chawnika v. State of Jharkhand & Another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 676.

Statutes / laws referred (by implication):The order concerns a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) against rejection of anticipatory bail by the Patna High Court in a complaint case. While no specific sections are cited, the context involves:

• Provisions relating to anticipatory bail (section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by necessary implication).
• Magistrate’s power to issue process and non-bailable warrants under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (again, referred to implicitly through the discussion on summons and non-bailable warrants in complaint cases).

Brief Summary (Three Sentences)

The petitioner challenged the Patna High Court’s order dated 09.02.2026 refusing anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 3462 (C) of 2023 and directing her to surrender and seek regular bail. The Supreme Court noted that no coercive process such as a non-bailable warrant had been issued by the complaint court, and relying on Om Prakash Chhawnika v. State of Jharkhand & Another (2026 SCC OnLine SC 676), held that in complaint cases the accused is only required to appear pursuant to summons unless a non-bailable warrant is issued. While declining to entertain the anticipatory bail prayer, the Court deprecated and expunged the High Court’s direction requiring the petitioner to surrender and apply for regular bail, clarifying that she must comply with any appearance required by the complaint court.