Apex Court Refuses to Cancel Anticipatory Bail for Alleged Habitual Offender.


17 April 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court in the matter of Ankit Mishra Vs The State of Madhya Pradesg & Anr., has declined to interfere with an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court granting anticipatory bail to an alleged gangster, Abdul Razzak (respondent no. 2), who is accused of offences under Sections 195A (threatening any person to give false evidence), 294 (obscene acts and songs), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The apex court, while acknowledging the respondent's extensive criminal history, emphasized the nature of the specific offences for which anticipatory bail was granted.

The appellant, the de facto complainant, had challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that Abdul Razzak is a habitual offender with 45 FIRs registered against him and a conviction for a past offence. The appellant contended that granting anticipatory bail to such an individual would allow him to misuse his liberty and continue his criminal activities.

The case originated from an incident on March 30, 2023, when the appellant encountered Abdul Razzak at Victoria Hospital in Jabalpur. According to the appellant, Abdul Razzak, who was present for a medical-legal case, became aggressive upon seeing the appellant. He allegedly hurled obscene abuses, used derogatory language, and issued death threats, demanding the appellant withdraw a previous complaint against him and alter his testimony. An FIR was subsequently registered based on the appellant's complaint, and his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. corroborated these allegations.

 

 

The respondent's counsel argued before the Supreme Court that the High Court had considered his criminal history before granting anticipatory bail. It was submitted that while numerous cases were registered against him, most dated back to the period between 1991 and 2012, and he had either been acquitted or released on bail in those cases. There was a period between 2012 and 2021 with no new FIRs. Although some FIRs were registered from August 26, 2021, onwards, including a case under the National Security Act, the proceedings under the NSA were quashed by the Supreme Court in a previous petition.

The State of Madhya Pradesh, represented by the learned ASG, Mr. K.M. Nataraj, vehemently argued against the anticipatory bail, citing the respondent's criminal antecedents. However, he fairly conceded that the State's own special leave petition against the High Court's order had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides and examining the case records, referred to its earlier ruling in Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. regarding the principles for granting and cancelling bail. The court reiterated that bail, once granted, should not be cancelled mechanically unless there are supervening circumstances or serious errors in the initial grant of bail.

In the present case, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court had considered the respondent's criminal history and the specific allegations in the current FIR. Crucially, the apex court pointed out that the offences alleged in the present FIR – Sections 195A, 294, and 506 IPC – are all triable by a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, and none carry a sentence exceeding seven years. The previous offence that formed the basis of the threats was also triable by a Judicial Magistrate, First Class.

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's decision to grant anticipatory bail did not suffer from any fundamental error of law, especially considering the nature of the offences involved. While acknowledging that habitual offenders should ordinarily not be released on bail routinely, the court emphasized that the High Court had elaborately considered the respondent's past record. The apex court stated that to interfere with the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court, it would need to find a serious error of law in the High Court's reasoning, which it did not find in this instance, particularly given the nature of the offences.

Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court. However, considering the respondent's criminal record, the Supreme Court imposed a condition: upon his release on bail in other pending cases, Abdul Razzak must report to the concerned police station on the 1st or 2nd day of every month during the trial's pendency and must not be involved in any other criminal activity. Failure to comply with this condition would allow the appellant or the State of Madhya Pradesh to seek cancellation of his bail before the High Court.

This judgment highlights the Supreme Court's emphasis on the specific nature and gravity of the offences for which bail is sought, even in cases involving individuals with a significant criminal history. While past conduct is a relevant consideration, the court underscored that the context of the current allegations plays a crucial role in determining the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail, especially when the alleged offences are not of a heinous nature.


Section 195., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 294., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 506., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 164., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Section 438., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973