Supreme Court Upholds Anticipatory Bail for Habitual Offender in Jabalpur Case
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a judgment in the case of Ankit Mishra vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., which revolved around the grant of anticipatory bail to a habitual offender. The case, which originated from an incident in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, raised important questions about the principles governing bail and the discretion exercised by courts in such matters.
The appellant, Ankit Mishra, had challenged the impugned judgment and final order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which allowed anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to respondent no. 2, Abdul Razzak. The FIR in question was registered under Sections 195A, 294, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at P.S. Omti, District Jabalpur.
The factual matrix of the case dates back to 30.03.2023, when the appellant visited Victoria Hospital in Jabalpur for a checkup. Respondent no. 2, who was present in the hospital premises for his MLC in connection with another criminal case, allegedly became agitated upon seeing the appellant. He hurled obscene abuses, used derogatory language, and extended death threats, demanding that the appellant withdraw his complaint and change his testimony. The appellant filed a complaint, leading to the registration of the FIR on the same day. His statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, reiterating the allegations against respondent no. 2.
The appellant argued that respondent no. 2 is a known gangster and habitual offender with a criminal record spanning several years. Documents submitted along with the appeal revealed that respondent no. 2 had 45 FIRs registered against him and was part of a gang with 58 members. The appellant emphasized that the High Court should not have granted anticipatory bail to such a habitual offender, especially given the risk of him misusing his liberty to indulge in further criminal activities.
On the other hand, the counsel for respondent no. 2 contended that the High Court had thoroughly examined the criminal history of the respondent before granting anticipatory bail. They pointed out that many of the cases registered against him were from the period between 1991 and 2012, and he had either been acquitted or released on bail in those cases. Furthermore, there were no FIRs against him from 2012 to 2021, and the recent cases, including one under the National Security Act, had been quashed by the Supreme Court.
Mr. K.M. Nataraj, the learned ASG appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, argued that the High Court should not have granted anticipatory bail considering the respondent’s criminal history. However, he acknowledged that the special leave petition filed by the state against the impugned order had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments and perusing the material on record, referred to the principles laid down in Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. regarding the cancellation of bail. The Court highlighted that bail once granted should not be cancelled mechanically unless there are supervening circumstances that render it no longer conducive to a fair trial. The grounds for cancellation include interference with the administration of justice, evasion of justice, abuse of bail, and likelihood of tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.
The Court also noted that cancellation of bail is not limited to supervening circumstances and can be justified if the grant of bail was based on irrelevant material, overlooked influential positions of the accused, ignored past criminal conduct, or was granted on untenable grounds. The judgment cited precedents such as Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar to reinforce these principles.
In the present case, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court had meticulously considered the criminal history of respondent no. 2 and the nature of the offences in the current FIR. The offences were triable by a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, and did not carry a sentence of more than seven years. The Court emphasized that while habitual offenders should not be granted bail routinely, the High Court’s decision in this case did not suffer from any fundamental error of law.
The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to respondent no. 2. However, it imposed conditions to ensure that respondent no. 2 reports to the concerned police station on the 1st or 2nd day of every month during the trial and refrains from any criminal activity. Failure to comply with these conditions would allow the appellant or the state to seek cancellation of bail.
This judgment underscores the delicate balance courts must maintain between individual liberty and public safety, especially in cases involving habitual offenders. It reaffirms the importance of judicial discretion and the need for a thorough examination of facts and circumstances before granting or cancelling bail.
Petitioner Name: Ankit Mishra.Respondent Name: The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr..Judgment By: Justice SANJAY KAROL, Justice PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA.Place Of Incident: Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.Judgment Date: 16-04-2025.Result: dismissed.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: ankit-mishra-vs-the-state-of-madhya-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-16-04-2025.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Extortion and Blackmail
See all petitions in Criminal Defamation
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Karol
See all petitions in Judgment by Prashant Kumar Mishra
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
