Section 319 Summons Does Not Mean Automatic Arrest: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Summoned Accused

The appellant was arraigned as an accused in a case under Sections 363, 342, 376D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, after the Trial Court summoned him under Section 319 CrPC on the testimony of the prosecutrix (para 3). He then sought anticipatory bail, which was refused (para 4); the record of proceedings names the impugned order as the Allahabad High Court's order of 12.03.2025. Accused No. 1, the principal accused, has already been acquitted (paras 5, 7). The State said the trial had been dragged on at the appellant's instance (para 6).

The Court held that when a summoning order is issued under Section 319 CrPC, the Trial Court is not automatically expected to pass an order arresting the accused (para 7). At that stage, the issue is whether detention of the accused is required for the conduct of the proceedings before the Trial Court (para 7). It recorded as undisputed that accused No. 1, the principal accused, had already been acquitted (para 7). Taking note of these facts and circumstances, the Court set aside the impugned order and granted the appellant anticipatory bail (paras 8-9). It remarked that the appellant had perhaps been ill-advised to apply for anticipatory bail at all, as the Trial Court had not even exercised its power to order his arrest (para 8). The order does not separately discuss the State's complaint that the trial had been delayed (para 6); it requires the appellant to cooperate with the trial and leaves the Trial Court at liberty to cancel the bail for non-cooperation (paras 8, 10). The order cites no decision.