1. Threatening a witness to withdraw a complaint and change testimony — FIR under Sections 195A, 294, and 506, IPC — Challenge to anticipatory bail grant. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 647
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Ankit Mishra – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2037 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 14566 of 2024)
Decided On : 17-04-2025
Important Points
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.
(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.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 195A, 294 and 506 – Anticipatory bail – Appeal for cancellation – 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 – 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 accused to retain his freedom by enjoying concession of bail during trial – Alleged offences in present FIR are all triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class – None of offences would carry sentence of more than seven years – View taken by High Court to release respondent on anticipatory bail does not suffer from any fundamental error of law – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 8, 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Appellant/de facto complainant has challenged impugned judgment and final order dated 10.04.2024 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh in MCRC No. 11000 of 2024 wherein High Court has allowed anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to respondent No. 2 in connection with FIR under Sections 195A, 294 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
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.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Shivang Rawat, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Muskaan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pawan Reley, AOR Mr. Akshay Lodhi, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Shariq Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Simran Singh, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Shivang Rawat, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Muskaan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pawan Reley, AOR Mr. Akshay Lodhi, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Shariq Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Simran Singh, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Habitual offender status and risk of misuse of liberty versus the High Court's consideration of criminal history and the nature of the offences. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. The offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class and not heinous; the High Court properly considered the accused's criminal history and the circumstances of arrest. (Para 9 , 10 )
4. Anticipatory bail may be upheld if the granting court considered relevant material and the offences are not heinous or triable by Sessions Court. (Para 10 )
5. Appeal dismissed; anticipatory bail upheld with a direction to report to the police station monthly upon release in other cases. (Para 10 )
6. Under what circumstances can a court cancel bail once granted?
Bail can be cancelled due to supervening circumstances such as interfering with the administration of justice, evading the law, abusing the concession, absconding, or tampering with evidence and witnesses. (Para 8 )
7. What is the difference between cancelling bail due to misconduct and setting aside an unjustified grant of bail?
Cancellation due to misconduct involves supervening circumstances. Setting aside an unjustified grant involves examining whether the original order was illegal, perverse, or based on irrelevant considerations, regardless of the accused's subsequent conduct. (Para 8 )
8. Does a habitual criminal record automatically disentitle an accused from anticipatory bail in non-heinous offences?
Not necessarily. If the court elaborately considers the criminal history and the offences are not heinous and are triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, the grant of anticipatory bail may be upheld. (Para 9 , 10 )
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
