Read Time: 07 minutes
Even as the appellant claimed the respondent faced 45 FIRs, the court said, had it been a case where the respondent-accused is alleged to have committed any heinous offence, the consideration would have been different but in the present case, the offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate.
The Supreme Court recently held that ordinarily habitual offender ought not to be released on bail in a routine manner, however, 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 committed any serious error in law while granting such a relief in the facts and circumstances of the case.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed an appeal filed by complainant Ankit Mishra against anticipatory bail granted to Abdul Razzak by the Madhya Pradesh High Court vide order dated April 10, 2024 in connection with FIR registered at P.S. Omti, Distt. Jabalpur under Sections 195A, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
"In our view, had it been a case where the respondent-accused is alleged to have committed any heinous offence, the consideration would have been different but as noted the offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed," the bench said.
Court referred Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2022) as to when bail once granted should be cancelled by the same Court or by the higher Court and treatment of a habitual offender in such cases.
Considering the criminal record of the respondent-accused, the court directed that as and when he is released on bail in other cases, he would report to the concerned police station on 1 st or 2nd day of every month during the pendency of the trial and should not be involved in any other criminal activity failing which it will remain open for the appellant or the first respondent/State of Madhya Pradesh to move before the High Court for cancellation of bail.
Brief Background
As per the complaint, on March 30, 2023, the appellant went to Victoria Hospital along with his friend (Sandeep Dubey) for a checkup. The accused 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, he 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 him and to change his testimony failing which the appellant and his family members would not be spared.
The appellant contended that the respondent-accused is a known gangster and habitual offender operating in and around Jabalpur having 58 members in his gang. It was further added that there were 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.
On the opposite, the respondents counsel said that the High Court has dealt with the criminal history and yet concluded that the present case is fit for release on anticipatory bail.
"Most of the criminal cases were registered during the period from 1991 to 2012 for which he has either been acquitted or released on bail. There was no FIR against him during the period from 2012 to 2021. However, from August 26, 2021 onwards other FIRs were registered against him including a case under National Security Act. However, the said proceedings under the National Security Act have been quashed by this court", counsel for the respondent precisely submitted.
Case Title: Ankit Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Please Login or Register
