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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.