IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances.
(2) Once benefit of anticipatory bail has been given by High Court, consideration for its cancellation has to be tested on anvil as to whether High Court has committed any serious error in law while granting anticipatory bail in facts and circumstances of case.

JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant/de facto complainant has challenged the impugned judgment and final order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the High Court 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, 1973,¹[‘Cr.P.C.’] 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[‘IPC’]

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 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., (2022) 8 SCC 559 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 inst