In a recent judgment addressing the principles governing anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court emphasized the limited grounds on which such bail can be cancelled once granted by a High Court.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling concerning anticipatory bail jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that
‘once anticipatory bail is granted by a High Court, its cancellation must be scrutinized strictly on the grounds of whether the High Court committed any serious error in law‘
Merely disapproving of the High Court’s decision or citing the accused’s criminal history does not justify cancellation unless a grave legal misstep is evident.
This observation came from a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, which dismissed an appeal seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Abdul Razzak, a man alleged to be a habitual offender with a notorious record of criminal conduct.
Case Background
The appeal was filed by the de facto complainant, Ankit Mishra, challenging the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had allowed Abdul Razzak’s application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The case stemmed from an FIR registered under Sections 195A, 294, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, relating to criminal intimidation, use of abusive language, and threats to deter a witness from giving evidence.
The complainant alleged that Razzak, a known gangster with a gang comprising 58 members operating in and around Jabalpur, had previously threatened him at Victoria Hospital, where both had coincidentally arrived — one for a medical checkup and the other for a medico-legal case (MLC). According to the complaint, Razzak used derogatory language and threatened the appellant with dire consequences if he did not withdraw a previous complaint lodged against him.
Significantly, the appellant pointed out that as many as 45 FIRs had been registered against Razzak, including one that resulted in a conviction and a two-year sentence for a similar offence.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
Despite acknowledging Razzak’s extensive criminal background, the Supreme Court upheld the anticipatory bail order, observing that the High Court had not acted arbitrarily or ignored legal standards. The Bench underscored the principle that
“once anticipatory bail is granted, cancellation is warranted only if a serious legal error has occurred or if there is misuse of the liberty granted“
The Court further highlighted that the offences alleged in the FIR are triable by a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, and none of them carry a sentence exceeding seven years of imprisonment. It also took note that the alleged threats pertained to a prior offence of similar nature, also triable by the Magistrate.
Importantly, the Supreme Court noted that Razzak had not been arrested in connection with the present FIR, and the anticipatory bail was granted in anticipation of possible arrest, especially since he was already in custody for other unrelated offences. The Bench opined that the possibility of using the present case to ensure continued incarceration was a valid concern.
“Had it been a case involving heinous offences, the situation would have been different. However, considering the nature of offences in the present FIR and the High Court’s reasoned approach, we see no reason to interfere,” the Bench held.
Conditions Imposed & Final Directions
While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court imposed certain safeguards to ensure compliance and prevent abuse of the liberty granted. These include:
- Monthly reporting: Razzak must report to the concerned police station on the 1st or 2nd day of every month during the pendency of the trial.
- No further offences: He must not engage in any additional criminal activity. Any violation may prompt the State or the complainant to approach the High Court for cancellation of bail.
Legal Significance
This ruling reinforces the judicial principle that anticipatory bail, once granted, cannot be lightly revoked unless compelling reasons—such as procedural impropriety or misuse of the relief—are established. The judgment serves as a reminder that even accused individuals with past convictions are entitled to fair treatment under the law, especially when the current accusations are of a non-heinous and triable nature.
Case Title: Ankit Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 501
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
Counsel Appearance:
- For Appellant: AOR Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocates Shivang Rawat, Abhinav Chaturvedi, Muskaan
- For Respondents: AOR Pawan Reley, Advocates Akshay Lodhi, Utkarsh Agarwal, Shariq Ahmed, Simran Singh, Gaurav Kumar
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
