When a summons is issued in a criminal case, it is essentially an official order for an individual to appear before the court. It differs from an arrest warrant, which authorizes law enforcement to take someone into custody. The purpose of a summons is to give the accused an opportunity to present themselves voluntarily. However, questions often arise around the issue of bail after a summons is issued, especially when there is uncertainty regarding potential arrest or detention.

This article explains the process, conditions, and legal intricacies surrounding bail after a summons is issued in various types of cases.

1. Understanding Summons and Their Purpose

Summons are generally issued in cases involving non-cognizable or bailable offenses, where there is no immediate need to detain the individual for investigation. Unlike arrest warrants, which compel police action, summons encourage voluntary compliance by requesting the accused's appearance in court. Summons serve as a procedural formality, ensuring that the accused is informed of the charges and provided a fair chance to respond.

2. Legal Provisions for Bail After Summons

Sections 436 to 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Sections 478 to 483 of the Bharatiy Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bail after summons is typically relevant when the accused faces potential arrest or detention. When an accused appears before a court after receiving a summons, the court may either:

• Grant bail directly, especially if the offense is bailable and no specific risk of non-compliance or danger exists.
• Impose conditions for release, which vary based on the nature of the offense and any prior records of the accused.

Types of Bail Available:

Since the Supreme Court is not very clear on this issue whether a person who has received a summons from the court or a bailable warrant has been issued against him, shall appear before the court and seek a regular bail, or shall apply first seek anticipatory bail from a court of sessions or the High Court. Various High Courts have different views on this issue. While Rajasthan, Delhi, Punjab and Haryana, Madras High Court has ruled that a person who has been called to the  court through summons in a non-bailable offence, can first seek an anticipatory bail whereas the Orrisa and Guwahati High Court has ruled that since calling a person to court is the purpose of issuing Summons against a person, therefore, it is just a process of seeking presence of a person in the court and as soon as the person who has been called through summons, can apply for regular bail.

• Anticipatory Bail: If the accused anticipates arrest after the court appearance, they may apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), allowing them to secure bail before detention. The Madras High Court in the case of Sennasi held as under:-

“Therefore, it is made clear that even if the non-bailable warrant is pending against an accused person, the High Court or the Sessions Court has absolute powers to exercise its decoration to grant anticipatory bail. But the Apex Court has viewed that though such power is available to the abovesaid courts, for the reason that all the evidence are placed before the regular court, which has the facility to look into it, that court should not be by-passed by granting anticipatory bail to the entire period till the end of trial but in appropriate cases, to safeguard the liberty of the accused person, the interim bail for a limited period can be granted, to enable him to move to the regular court before which the charge sheet is pending. Therefore, even though the powers of the High Court and the sessions court are not restricted to grant anticipatory bail even after the issue of the non-bailable warrant, to deal with the accused person properly with the evidence available against him, as per the view of the Apex Court, he has to be directed to approach the regular court for bail, but granting interim anticipatory bail to the limited period for his appearance before the regular court.”

In the case of Manohar Lal Saini, the Rajasthan High Court held:-

“Even in a case where negative final report submitted by the police in a case registered on the basis of complaint or FIR, is accepted by the Court, the accused acquires some semblance of right to be heard if the order accepting such final report is challenged any further, which cannot be annulled without providing opportunity of hearing to him. The right of an accused, who has been summoned by bailable warrant, if not at the same level, can on that analogy at least be cited to support the contention that he has a right to be heard before he is ordered to be sent behind the bars. If therefore a newly added accused under Section 319 of the Code is in the first instance summoned by bailable warrant, he acquires a right of substantial nature to know the reasons from the court in its order if later he is sought to be sent behind the bars, and also the right to be heard by the court before passing such order. If contrary view is approved, this will stultify the right of personal liberty guaranteed to a citizen, who is presumed to be an innocent until proven guilty and would cause grave prejudice to him. Liberty of a citizen is of paramount importance and constitutional guarantee, which cannot be incised. Doing so would also frustrate the law so developed by catena of judgments delivered by the Supreme Court to zealously safeguard the personal liberty of citizens of the country and to see that they are not subjected to unnecessary harassment. When we say that every administrative action should be informed of fair play, we must also observe that the courts should also follow the same principle in their functioning where reasonable amount of certainty as also consistency should always be exhibited in their functioning”

Delhi High Court in the case of Yogesh Sudhanushu Kumar held as under:-

“From the perusal of this part of Section 438 of CrPC, we find no restriction in regard to exercise of this power in a suitable case either by the Court of Session, High Court or this Court even when cognizance is taken or a charge-sheet is filed. The object of Section 438 is to prevent undue harassment of the accused persons by pre-trial arrest and detention. The fact, that a court has either taken cognizance of the complaint or the investigating agency has filed a charge-sheet, would not by itself, in our opinion, prevent the courts concerned from granting anticipatory bail in appropriate cases. The gravity of the offence is an important factor to be taken into consideration while granting such anticipatory bail so also the need for custodial interrogation, but these are only factors that must be borne in mind by the courts concerned while entertaining a petition for grant of anticipatory bail and the fact of taking cognizance or filing of a charge- sheet cannot by itself be construed as a prohibition against the grant of anticipatory bail. In our opinion, the courts i.e. the Court of Session, High Court or this Court has the necessary power vested in them to grant anticipatory bail in non-bailable offences under Section 438 of CrPC even when cognizance is taken or a charge-sheet is filed provided the facts of the case require the court to do so.”

• Regular Bail: In non-bailable offenses, the court may choose to grant regular bail after the accused appears in response to a summons, depending on the circumstances and seriousness of the charge.

3. Key Factors Considered by Courts in Granting Bail After Summons

Courts generally take into account several factors before deciding on bail for an individual who has responded to a summons, including:

• The Severity of the Offense: Minor, bailable offenses are often met with straightforward bail approvals, while serious offenses may involve a more detailed examination.
• Risk of Flight: If there is no substantial risk of the accused fleeing, courts are likely to favor bail.
• Prior Criminal Record: A clean record increases the chances of bail.
• Public Interest and Safety: Courts may deny bail if the accused poses a danger to society or to the complainant.

4. Procedure for Seeking Bail After Summons

After receiving a summons, the accused has the following options to secure bail:

• Appearing in Court on the Scheduled Date: On appearance, the accused can apply for bail before the court, usually through legal counsel.
• Anticipatory Bail Application (If Needed): If the accused fears arrest, they can apply for anticipatory bail. This application should ideally be filed before the date specified in the summons.
• Immediate Bail Plea: Once in court, the accused can immediately submit a plea for bail. In many cases, the court may release the accused on personal bond or with minimal surety, provided the conditions for bail are met.

5. Conditions of Bail

Courts have the discretion to impose specific conditions while granting bail, such as:

• Regular Appearances: The accused may be required to appear on every hearing date.
• Restrictions on Travel: Courts may restrict the accused from traveling outside the jurisdiction or country without permission.
• Contact with Complainant: The accused may be prohibited from contacting or approaching the complainant.

These conditions are put in place to ensure compliance and protect the interests of justice.

6. Implications of Failing to Appear After Summons

Non-compliance with a summons can lead to serious legal repercussions, including:

• Issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW): The court may issue a warrant that authorizes the police to detain the individual.
• Ineligibility for Bail: The accused may lose the opportunity for bail due to non-compliance.
• Contempt Proceedings: Persistent non-compliance can lead to contempt proceedings or additional penalties.

7. Recent Legal Trends and Supreme Court Rulings

The judiciary has made efforts to streamline bail processes, emphasizing that detention should not be punitive but a means to secure compliance. The Supreme Court of India has, in recent rulings, stressed the importance of granting bail wherever feasible, even after summons, especially when detention is unnecessary for the case's investigation.

Conclusion

Obtaining bail after summons reflects the balance between ensuring the accused's presence in court and safeguarding personal liberty. As a matter of practice, individuals who comply with summons are often granted bail under reasonable conditions. Preparing in advance, understanding one’s rights, and appearing promptly before the court on the specified date are key to navigating this aspect of the legal process effectively.

Reference:-

1.       Manohar Lal Saini & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan 2016 (1) CrLR (Raj.) 184

2.       Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & Anr. 2022 CRLR (SC) 872

3.       Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & ORs. 2008 CrLR (SC) 574

4.       Oma Ram Vs. State SB Cri Revision Petition No. 185/2019 (Raj. High Court)

5.       Bharat Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar (2003) AIR SC 4662

6.       Vinay Das Chela Shanteshwar Vs. State of Rajasthan 2016 (2) RAF (Raj.) 93

7.       Kundal Majumdar Vs. State of Tripura (2002) CrLJ 353

8.       Salauddin Abulsamad Shaikh Vs. State of Maharastra 1996 CrLR (SC) 18

9.       Puran Singh Vs. Ajit Singh 1985 CrLJ 897

10.   Yogesh Sudhanshu Kumar vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office on 6 March, 2024 BAIL APPLN. 3414/2022 & CRL.M.A. 23677/2022

11.   Sennasi And Anr. vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police 1997(2)CTC665

Share this News