LexANKIT MISHRA versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1312 : 2025 INSC 501 Ankit Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2037 of 2025) 17 April 2025 [Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra*, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court has committed any serious error in law while granting anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the case. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.195A, 294, 506 – Allegation that respondent no.2 hurled abuses using derogatory language and extended death threats to appellant – FIR was registered – The High Court granted anticipatory bail to respondent no.2 – Appellant contended that the respondent no.2 is a known gangster and habitual offender, therefore he shouldn’t be entitled to anticipatory bail: Held: The alleged offences in the present FIR are all triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class – None of the offences would carry sentence of more than seven years – 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 – If it had been a case where the respondent no.2 is alleged to have committed any heinous offence, the consideration would have been different – No interference required with the order passed by the High Court. [Paras 9, 10] * Author [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1313 Ankit Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Case Law Cited Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [2022] 4 SCR 1 : (2022) 8 SCC 559 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Anticipatory bail; Habitual offender; Cancellation of bail; Triable by judicial magistrate first class; Obscene abuses; Death threats; Previous offence; Heinous offence; Section 195A Penal Code, 1860; Section 294 Penal Code, 1860; Section 506 Penal Code, 1860; Section 164 CrPC; Error of law. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2037 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 10.04.2024 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in MCRC No. 11000 of 2024 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Abhinav Shrivastava, Shivang Rawat. Advs. for the Respondents: K. M. Nataraj, ASG, D.S. Parmar, AAG, Mrs. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Mrs. Shruti Verma, Pawan Reley, Akshy Lodhi, Gaurav Kumar, Ms. Simran Singh, Vivek Gupta. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant/defacto complainant has challenged the impugned judgment and final order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the High Court 1314 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports 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, 19731 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 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.