Supreme Court of India
ANKIT MISHRAversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 501
- Decided
- 17 April 2025
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- SANJAY KAROL
Holding
The High Court did not commit a serious error of law in granting anticipatory bail because the offences were not heinous, were triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, and the court had duly considered the respondent’s criminal history.
Summary
The appellant, Ankit Mishra, alleged that respondent No.2, Abdul Razzak, a known gangster, hurled obscene abuses and death threats at him in a hospital, leading to FIR No.176 of 2023 under IPC sections 195A, 294 and 506. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh granted anticipatory bail to the respondent under Section 438 of the CrPC. The appellant contended that the respondent’s habitual offender status and prior convictions should preclude such bail. The Supreme Court examined the legal standards for granting and cancelling bail, noting that the offences were triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class and did not carry a sentence exceeding seven years, and found no fundamental error of law in the High Court’s discretion. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the anticipatory bail while imposing monthly reporting conditions on the respondent.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to a habitual offender for offences triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class
- Whether the nature of the offences (non‑heinous and punishable with less than seven years' imprisonment) bars anticipatory bail
- Whether the High Court adequately considered the respondent’s past criminal record in granting bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 164, s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 195A, s. 294, s. 506
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court has committed any serious error in law while granting anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the case. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.195A, 294, 506 – Allegation using derogatory language and extended death threats to appellant – FIR was registered – The High Court granted anticipatory bail to respondent no.2 – Appellant contended that the respondent no.2 is a known gangster and habitual offender, therefore he shouldn’t be entitled
Subjects
Anticipatory bailHabitual offenderCancellation of bailTriable by judicial magistrate first classObscene abusesDeath threatsPrevious offenceHeinous offenceSection 195A Penal Code, 1860Section 294 Penal Code, 1860Section 506 Penal Code, 1860Section 164 CrPCError of law
Judgment
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1312 : 2025 INSC 501
Ankit Mishra
v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2037 of 2025)
17 April 2025
[Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra*, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court has committed any serious error in law
while granting anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Penal Code, 1860 –
ss.195A, 294, 506 – Allegation that respondent no.2 hurled
abuses using derogatory language and extended death threats
to appellant – FIR was registered – The High Court granted
anticipatory bail to respondent no.2 – Appellant contended
that the respondent no.2 is a known gangster and habitual
offender, therefore he shouldn’t be entitled to anticipatory bail:
Held: The alleged offences in the present FIR are all triable by
Judicial Magistrate, First Class – None of the offences would carry
sentence of more than seven years – The view taken by the High
Court to release respondent no.2 on anticipatory bail does not
suffer from any fundamental error of law – 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 – If it had been a case where the
respondent no.2 is alleged to have committed any heinous offence,
the consideration would have been different – No interference
required with the order passed by the High Court. [Paras 9, 10]
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1313
Ankit Mishra v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Case Law Cited
Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [2022] 4 SCR 1 :
(2022) 8 SCC 559 – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Anticipatory bail; Habitual offender; Cancellation of bail; Triable
by judicial magistrate first class; Obscene abuses; Death threats;
Previous offence; Heinous offence; Section 195A Penal Code,
1860; Section 294 Penal Code, 1860; Section 506 Penal Code,
1860; Section 164 CrPC; Error of law.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2037 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.04.2024 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in MCRC
No. 11000 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Abhinav Shrivastava, Shivang Rawat.
Advs. for the Respondents:
K. M. Nataraj, ASG, D.S. Parmar, AAG, Mrs. Mrinal Gopal Elker,
Mrs. Shruti Verma, Pawan Reley, Akshy Lodhi, Gaurav Kumar,
Ms. Simran Singh, Vivek Gupta.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant/defacto complainant has challenged the impugned
judgment and final order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the High Court
1314 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of Madhya Pradesh in MCRC No. 11000 of 2024 wherein the High
Court has allowed anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 19731 to respondent no. 2 (Abdul Razzak) in
connection with FIR No. 176 of 2023 registered at P.S. Omti, Distt.
Jabalpur under Sections 195A, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.2
3. Briefly stated, the factual matrix of the case is that at around 1.00
P.M on 30.03.2023, the appellant went to Victoria Hospital along
with his friend (Sandeep Dubey) for a checkup. Respondent No. 2
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, respondent no. 2 became agitated and started hurling
obscene abuses, using derogatory language and extended death
threats to the appellant telling him to withdraw the complaint lodged
by him against respondent no. 2 and to change his testimony failing
which the appellant and his family members would not be spared.
On appellant’s complaint, the subject FIR was registered on the
same day i.e. 30.03.2023. His statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C
was also recorded wherein the appellant reiterated the allegations
against respondent no. 2.
4. It is the case of the appellant that respondent no. 2 is a known
gangster and habitual offender operating in and around Jabalpur
having 58 members in his gang. Documents to this effect have been
filed along with this appeal. There are 45 FIRs registered against
him, therefore, the High Court ought not to have exercised the
discretion of allowing the benefit of anticipatory bail in favour of a
habitual offender. Respondent No. 2 is also convicted and awarded
imprisonment of 02 years in a case arising out of FIR No. 41 of 1996
registered at P.S. Madan Mahal, Jabalpur and that he has committed
several other offences of similar nature akin to the present one. It
is also highlighted that respondent no. 2 may misuse his liberty by
indulging in similar activities considering his track record. Therefore,
respondent no. 2 is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 would submit that
the High Court has dealt with the criminal history of respondent
1 ‘Cr.P.C.’
2 ‘IPC’
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1315
Ankit Mishra v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
no. 2 and yet concluded that the present is a fit case for his release
on anticipatory bail. It is submitted that most of the criminal cases
were registered during the period from 1991 to 2012 for which the
respondent no. 2 has either been acquitted or released on bail.
There was no FIR against him during the period from 2012 to 2021.
However, from 26.08.2021 onwards other FIRs were registered
against respondent no. 2 including a case under National Security
Act. However, the said proceedings under National Security Act have
been quashed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8597
of 2012 vide order dated 31.01.2013.
6. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG appearing for the State of Madhya
Pradesh would vehemently submit that considering the criminal history
of respondent no. 2 the High Court ought not to have allowed the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. However, he would fairly submit
that the special leave petition (Crl.) No. 14223 of 2024 preferred by
the State of Madhya Pradesh against the present impugned order has
already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2024.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
8. Before proceeding to deal with the merits of the case it would be
appropriate to bear in mind the law laid down by this Court in the
matter of Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.3 as to
when bail once granted should be cancelled by the same Court or
by the higher Court. The following is held in paras 31 to 36:
“31. This Court has reiterated in several instances that
bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical
manner without considering whether any supervening
circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to
a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by
enjoying the concession of bail during trial. Having said
that, in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order
directing cancellation of bail (which was already granted).
32. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram v. State
of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237] laid
down the grounds for cancellation of bail which are:
3 (2022) 8 SCC 559
1316 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due
course of administration of justice;
(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of
justice;
(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused
in any manner;
(iv) possibility of the accused absconding;
(v) likelihood of/actual misuse of bail;
(vi) likelihood of the accused tampering with the
evidence or threatening witnesses.
33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be
limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances.
This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion
to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of
supervening circumstances. Following are the illustrative
circumstances where the bail can be cancelled:
33.1. Where the court granting bail takes into account
irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial
nature while ignoring relevant material on record.
33.2. Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential
position of the accused in comparison to the victim of
abuse or the witnesses especially when there is prima
facie misuse of position and power over the victim.
33.3. Where the past criminal record and conduct of the
accused is completely ignored while granting bail.
33.4. Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds.
33.5. Where serious discrepancies are found in the order
granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice.
33.6. Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the
first place given the very serious nature of the charges
against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus
cannot be justified.
33.7. When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical,
capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case.
34. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 :
(2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527], the accused was granted bail by
the High Court. In an appeal against the order [Mitthan
Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC Online All 16031] of the
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1317
Ankit Mishra v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court examined
the precedents on the principles that guide grant of bail
and observed as under : (SCC p. 513, para 12)
“12. … It is well settled in law that cancellation of
bail after it is granted because the accused has
misconducted himself or of some supervening
circumstances warranting such cancellation have
occurred is in a different compartment altogether
than an order granting bail which is unjustified,
illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors
which should have been taken into consideration
while dealing with the application for bail have not
been taken note of or it is founded on irrelevant
considerations, indisputably the superior court can set
aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case
belongs to a different category and is in a separate
realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the
court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions
by the accused or the supervening circumstances
that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary,
delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the
order passed by the court.”
(emphasis supplied)
35. This Court in Mahipal [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020)
2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] held that : (SCC p.
126, para 17)
“17. Where a court considering an application for bail
fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court
may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An
appellate court is thus required to consider whether
the order granting bail suffers from a non-application
of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view
of the evidence on record. It is thus necessary for
this Court to assess whether, on the basis of the
evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the accused had
committed the crime, also taking into account the
seriousness of the crime and the severity of the
punishment.”
1318 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
36. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prakash Kadam v.
Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, (2011) 6 SCC 189 : (2011)
2 SCC (Cri) 848] held that : (SCC p. 195, paras 18-19)
“18. In considering whether to cancel the bail, the
court has also to consider the gravity and nature of
the offence, prima facie case against the accused,
the position and standing of the accused, etc. If there
are very serious allegations against the accused, his
bail may be cancelled even if he has not misused
the bail granted to him. …
19. In our opinion, there is no absolute rule that
once bail is granted to the accused then it can only
be cancelled if there is likelihood of misuse of bail.
That factor, though no doubt important, is not the only
factor. There are several other factors also which may
be seen while deciding to cancel the bail.”
9. Reverting back to the present case, the High Court has dealt with
the previous criminal cases registered against respondent no. 2.
The High Court has also considered the facts and circumstances
including the allegations in the present case. The alleged offences in
the present FIR are all triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class. None
of the offences would carry 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. Respondent no. 2
is in jail in connection with some other offences. However, still, he
was allowed anticipatory bail in the present case because he has
not been arrested by the concerned police in the present case and
it appears that if he is released on bail in other cases, he may be
arrested in the present case also so as to keep him in jail.
10. Having given anxious consideration to the arguments placed by
both the sides, we are of the considered view that the view taken
by the High Court to release respondent no. 2 on anticipatory bail
does not suffer from any fundamental error of law. It is not a case
where respondent no. 2 has been released on anticipatory bail in a
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1319
Ankit Mishra v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
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. 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. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
However, considering the criminal record of respondent no. 2,it is
directed that as and when he is released on bail in other cases, he
shall report to the concerned police station on 1st 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.
Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Anticipatory bail"Sign in to search