Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Supreme Court
Consideration For Cancellation Of Anticipatory Bail Given By High Court Has To Be Tested On Anvil As To Whether Serious Error In Law Is Committed While Granting The Same: Supreme Court
|The complainant approached the Supreme Court challenged the judgment granting anticipatory bail to the second respondent-accused in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 195A, 294 and 506 of the IPC.
While upholding the order granting anticipatory bail to an alleged habitual offender, the Supreme Court has observed that once the benefit of anticipatory bail has been given by the High Court, the consideration for its cancellation has to be tested on the anvil as to whether the High Court has committed any serious error in law while granting such bail.
The Appellant/de facto complainant challenged the impugned judgment and final order allowing the anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to the second respondent (Abdul Razzak) in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 195 A, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held, “It is not a case where respondent no. 2 has been released on anticipatory bail in a heinous offence. True it is that ordinarily habitual offender ought not to be released on bail in a routine manner, however, in the case at hand, the High Court has elaborately dealt with the cases against respondent no. 2. Once the benefit of anticipatory bail has been given by the High Court, the consideration for its cancellation has to be tested on the anvil as to whether the High Court has committed any serious error in law while granting anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
AOR Abhinav Shrivastava represented the Appellant while AOR Pawan Reley represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was the case of the appellant that the second respondent is a known gangster and habitual offender operating in and around Jabalpur, having 58 members in his gang. The appellant-complainant had gone to Victoria Hospital along with his friend (Sandeep Dubey) for a checkup. The second respondent happened to be in the hospital premises at the same time for his MLC in connection with some other criminal case. On seeing the appellant, the second respondent became agitated and started hurling obscene abuses, using derogatory language.
He allegedly extended death threats to the appellant, telling him to withdraw the complaint lodged by him against the second respondent, failing which the appellant and his family members would not be spared. On the appellant’s complaint, the subject FIR was registered on the same day. It was alleged that there were 45 FIRs registered against him. The second Respondent was also convicted and awarded imprisonment of 2 years in a case arising out of an FIR registered for committing offences of a similar nature.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the High Court had dealt with the previous criminal cases registered against the second respondent and had also considered the facts and circumstances, including the allegations in the present case. It was noticed that all the alleged offences in the present FIR are triable by a Judicial Magistrate, First Class and none of those would carry a sentence of more than seven years.
“The previous offence in relation to which respondent no. 2 has extended threats constituting the present offence is also triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, hence, the present offences would also be triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class in terms of Section 195A of the IPC. Thus, the present offence is not triable by Sessions and does not carry sentence more than seven years”, it said.
The Bench further noticed that the second respondent is in jail in connection with some other offences. However, still, he was allowed anticipatory bail in the present case because he had not been arrested by the concerned police in the present case. It also appeared to the Bench that if he is released on bail in other cases, he may be arrested in the present case also to keep him in jail.
The Bench asserted, “In our view, had it been a case where respondent no. 2 is alleged to have committed any heinous offence, the consideration would have been different but as noted infra, the offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.”
Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “...it is directed that as and when he is released on bail in other cases, he shall report to the concerned police station on 1 st or 2nd day of every month during the pendency of the trial and shall not be involved in any other criminal activity failing which it will remain open for the appellant or the first respondent/State of Madhya Pradesh to move before the High Court for cancellation of bail granted to respondent no. 2.”
Cause Title: Ankit Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 501)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocates Shivang Rawat, Abhinav Chaturvedi, Muskaan
Respondents: AOR Pawan Reley, Advocates Akshay Lodhi, Utkarsh Agarwal, Shariq Ahmed, Simran Singh, Gaurav Kumar