Observes that absconders cannot claim parity with acquitted co-accused; directs surrender within four weeks
NEW DELHI, February 23, 2026: In a significant judgment reinforcing the principles governing anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court today set aside the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court granting pre-arrest bail to an accused who had been absconding for over six years in a murder case. The bench held that a person who evades the process of law cannot claim the relief of anticipatory bail as a matter of right, and the subsequent acquittal of co-accused does not automatically entitle an absconding accused to parity.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi allowed the appeal filed by the original complainant, Balmukund Singh Gautam, challenging the High Court’s order dated January 19, 2024. The impugned order had disposed of the third anticipatory bail application filed by the accused, Chandan Singh, directing him to surrender before the trial court and move a regular bail application, with further direction that the trial court shall grant bail on the same day after imposing adequate conditions.
Case Background: Political Rivalry Turns Fatal
The case originates from incidents that occurred on June 2, 2017, stemming from purported political rivalry between two groups, leading to the registration of three separate FIRs. The subject FIR (No.226/2017) was lodged by the complainant on June 3, 2017, at Pithampur Police Station, District Dhar, against fourteen accused persons including Chandan Singh and his father.
According to the allegations, when the complainant and his companions were returning after attending a function, they were wrongfully restrained near Ghatabillod Petrol Pump on Pithampur Road by the named accused, who stopped the complainant’s Scorpio car, attacked them, and damaged the vehicle with stones, sticks, swords, and gunfire with the intention of killing them. It was further alleged that when the complainant later proceeded to report the matter near co-accused Chandan Singh’s house, the accused again blocked the way and attempted to kill them by firing guns, in which one Shailendra alias Pintu and one Bablu Chaudhary sustained bullet injuries. The injured Bablu Chaudhary later succumbed to his injuries, whereupon Section 302 IPC was added.
A cross FIR (No.227/2017) was also registered by co-accused Chandan Singh against nine persons including the original complainant.
The Accused’s Conduct: Absconding for Six Years
A critical factor that weighed heavily against the accused was his conduct throughout the investigation. The accused had been absconding since the date of the incident, i.e., June 2, 2017. The Pithampur Police Station addressed letters to authorities seeking details of his movable and immovable properties and requested the Judicial Magistrate to initiate proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC for proclamation against the absconding accused. Rewards of Rs.10,000 and Rs.15,000 were also declared by the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police respectively for his arrest.
Despite these efforts, there was nothing on record to indicate that the accused was formally declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC. However, the court noted that the High Court itself, while dismissing his second anticipatory bail application on February 11, 2020, had observed that the accused was a proclaimed offender.
While being absconding, the accused allegedly threatened the main witness Shailendra alias Pintu, who was injured in the incident, leading to registration of FIR No.272/2019 against him under Sections 341 and 506 IPC. The trial court had also provided security to the injured witness due to threats from the accused.
Previous Bail Applications and Trial Developments
The accused moved his first anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court in November 2019, which was dismissed on December 9, 2019. The trial court noted that the accused had been absconding since the incident, rewards had been declared for his arrest, and he had criminal antecedents including cases at Police Station Betma and Pithampur.
His subsequent anticipatory bail applications before the High Court—MCRC No.4823 of 2020 and a second application—were also dismissed on February 11, 2020, and January 19, 2021 respectively.
Meanwhile, the trial in both the subject FIR and cross FIR concluded. On June 24, 2023, the 22nd Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (MP/MLA), Indore, acquitted all named accused in the subject FIR, other than the absconding accused, holding that the prosecution had completely failed to prove that the deceased and the injured were actually hit by bullets fired by the named accused. The trial court even recorded a finding that the complainant’s party were the aggressors.
On the same date, in the cross FIR, the trial court convicted the original complainant and five other accused under Section 307 read with 149 IPC (two counts) and Section 148 IPC, as well as under the Arms Act.
The High Court’s Reasoning
Relying heavily on the acquittal of co-accused and the trial court’s observations, the accused preferred his third anticipatory bail application before the High Court. The High Court disposed of the application by directing the accused to surrender and move regular bail, with a further direction to the trial court to grant bail on the same day after imposing adequate conditions.
The High Court observed that the prosecution did not produce any material or evidence indicating the involvement of the accused persons in the subject FIR, though it clarified that these observations were for consideration of the bail application only.
Supreme Court’s Analysis: Principles Reiterated
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court undertook a comprehensive analysis of the law governing anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The bench referred to several landmark judgments including Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, and the Constitutional Bench decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi).
The Supreme Court reiterated the factors to be borne in mind while considering bail applications: prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused committed the offence; nature and gravity of accusation; severity of punishment in event of conviction; danger of accused absconding or fleeing; likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses; and criminal antecedents.
On Absconding Accused: The court held that an absconder is not entitled to anticipatory bail as a general rule. Referring to Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, the bench observed that even procedural irregularity in declaring an accused as absconder is not a justifiable ground to grant pre-arrest bail in grave offences, save where the court is prima facie satisfied of false or exaggerated accusation.
“Granting anticipatory bail to an absconding accused sets a bad precedent and sends a message that law-abiding co-accused who stood trial were wrong to diligently attend the process of law, and incentivizes people to evade the process with impunity,” the bench observed.
On Parity with Acquitted Co-accused: The court categorically rejected the argument that acquittal of co-accused entities an absconding accused to anticipatory bail on ground of parity. Relying on the Kerala High Court’s full bench decision in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police, the Supreme Court noted that in a trial against co-accused, the prosecution is not required to adduce evidence against the absconding accused. Therefore, the acquittal or conviction of co-accused cannot have any bearing on the absconding accused.
“The said consideration is completely erroneous and perverse in an anticipatory bail application, especially when the accused had been absconding for about 6 years and made a mockery of the judicial process. In view of such circumstances, the accused cannot be permitted to encash on the acquittal of the co-accused persons,” the court held.
On Criminal Antecedents and Witness Intimidation: The Supreme Court court took serious note of the accused’s criminal antecedents—Crime No.07/2010, 155/2017, 217/2017, and 217/2019—and the fact that he threatened the injured eyewitness while absconding. The firearms used in the incident also remained unrecovered.
On Post-Bail Conduct: The accused’s counsel argued that there were no allegations of post-bail misconduct or violation of conditions. However, the court clarified that such considerations are relevant only for cancellation of bail, not for appeals against grant of bail. Referring to Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi, the bench held that post-bail conduct cannot be a valid consideration while dealing with an appeal against grant of bail.
The Final Direction
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and directed the accused to surrender before the concerned court within four weeks. However, it clarified that after surrender, he would be free to seek regular bail, which shall be decided in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this judgment.
The court also expressed surprise that the State of Madhya Pradesh, while fully supporting the complainant’s case in its counter affidavit, had not filed any appeal challenging the High Court’s order.
Legal Significance
The Supreme Court judgment reinforces several fundamental principles governing anticipatory bail:
First, it emphasizes that anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is a discretionary and extraordinary remedy, not to be granted routinely. Courts must carefully examine the accused’s conduct, including whether they cooperated with investigation or remained absconding.
Second, it clarifies that the acquittal of co-accused in a trial where the absconding accused was not tried cannot be a ground for granting anticipatory bail, as the prosecution was not required to lead evidence against the absconding accused.
Third, it reiterates that criminal antecedents and likelihood of witness intimidation are relevant factors weighing against grant of anticipatory bail.
Fourth, it distinguishes between appeals against grant of bail and applications for cancellation, holding that post-bail conduct is relevant only for the latter.
The Supreme Court judgment serves as a strong reminder that those who flee from justice cannot later seek equitable relief by relying on developments in trials they chose to evade. It upholds the principle that the legal process cannot be manipulated by absconding accused who refuse to submit to jurisdiction while selectively claiming benefit of favorable orders.
Counsel Appearing in the Matter
The following advocates represented the parties before the Supreme Court :
For the Petitioner (Appellant/Original Complainant):
- Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR
- Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Advocate
- Ms. Samridhi Bhatt, Advocate
- Mr. Rahul Maheshwari, Advocate
For the Respondents:
- Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
- Mr. Abhinav Srivastav, Advocate
- Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Advocate
- Mr. Astik Gupta, Advocate
- Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Advocate
- Mr. Mohd. Ibrahim, Advocate
- Mr. Shivashish Joshi, Advocate
- Mr. Pranav Diesh, Advocate
- Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, AOR
Read more:-
Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Developer in Multi-Crore Dream Tower Flat Fraud Case
