Supreme Court Upholds Anticipatory Bail to Accused, Holds No Fundamental Error in High Court's Exercise of Discretion

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard an appeal by the appellant (de facto complainant) challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order dated 10.04.2024 which granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to respondent No. 2 (Abdul Razzak) in connection with FIR No. 176 of 2023 registered at P.S. Omti, Jabalpur under Sections 195A, 294 and 506 IPC. The appeal arose from allegations that respondent No. 2 threatened the appellant and his family to induce withdrawal or change of testimony in a prior case.

The Court dismissed the appeal and held that the High Court did not commit any "fundamental error of law" in granting anticipatory bail. It observed that the offences in the present FIR were triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class and did not attract sentences exceeding seven years, and that the High Court had considered the accused's past criminal record before exercising its discretion. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 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." The Court further directed that when respondent No. 2 was released on bail in other matters he should "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 the appellant or the State could move the High Court for cancellation of bail.

Background

The dispute arose on 30.03.2023 when the appellant visited Victoria Hospital for a medical check-up and encountered respondent No. 2, who was present for an MLC in an unrelated matter. The appellant alleged that respondent No. 2 became agitated, hurled obscene and derogatory abuses, and issued death threats demanding withdrawal of a complaint and alteration of testimony; FIR No. 176 of 2023 was registered the same day and the appellant’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded reiterating the allegations. The appellant contended that respondent No. 2 was a known gangster and habitual offender with numerous antecedents (the record showed multiple FIRs and an earlier conviction), and urged that a habitual offender should not have been granted anticipatory bail.

The respondent's counsel and the High Court had noted that many earlier cases dated from 1991–2012 had resulted in acquittals or bail and that there was a hiatus in FIRs between 2012 and 2021; some later proceedings (including an NSA matter) were previously quashed by this Court. The State's counsel (K.M. Nataraj, ASG) challenged the grant of anticipatory bail but informed the Court that an earlier special leave petition against the High Court order had been dismissed on 15.10.2024.

While considering the matter, the Supreme Court relied on established principles governing cancellation of bail and the limited circumstances warranting interference with an order granting bail. The Court cited authority 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," and enumerated the exceptional grounds on which cancellation or vacation of bail may be justified. Applying those principles, the Court found that the High Court had examined the accused’s criminal history and the nature of the present offences and therefore declined to disturb the High Court’s discretionary order. The appeal was dismissed with the limited supervisory directions noted above and liberty was left to the appellant or the State to seek cancellation before the High Court in case of breach or fresh criminality.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 501 Case Title: Ankit Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not specified in the judgment For the Respondent(s): K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General (for State of Madhya Pradesh); Counsel for Respondent No.2 not specified