Post-Bail Conduct Not Valid Consideration In Appeal Against Grant Of Bail : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that the conduct of an accused after a grant of bail cannot be a valid consideration while deciding an appeal against a grant of bail.

“…post-bail conduct is never a valid consideration while dealing with an appeal against grant of bail, and such conduct is only relevant in an application for cancellation of bail.”, observed a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi, while setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, which granted an anticipatory bail to an absconding accused.

Against the High Court's order, the complainant moved to the Supreme Court.

Opposing the complainant's appeal, the Respondent No.2-accused contended that his post-bail conduct can be a valid consideration to dismiss the Appeal against the grant of an anticipatory bail.

Rejecting the accused's contention, the judgment authored by Justice Bishnoi, referencing Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi and Another, observed that post-bail conduct cannot form valid consideration while hearing an appeal against the grant of bail, as during this stage the Court looks into whether the impugned order suffers from perversity, illegality, or inconsistency with law. However, the court clarified that the post-bail conduct can form valid consideration while deciding an application for cancellation of bail.

“However, the Court may not take the conduct of an accused subsequent to the grant bail into consideration while considering an appeal against the grant of such bail. Such grounds must be taken in an application for cancellation of bail…”, the court said in Ashok Dhankad.

Also From Judgment: Absconding Accused Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail On Sole Ground Of Co-Accused' Acquittal : Supreme Court

Headnote

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Absconding Accused — An absconder is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail as a general rule - The power to grant pre-arrest bail to an absconder may only be exercised in exceptional cases where, upon perusal of the FIR and case diary, the Court is prima facie satisfied that the accusation is false or over-exaggerated - In the present case, the Accused remained untraceable for over six years, a reward was announced for his arrest, and he allegedly threatened a key witness; such conduct makes it an unfit case for the exercise of judicial discretion under Section 438.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 438 — Effect of Co-accused's Acquittal — The acquittal of co-accused persons during the period an accused was absconding does not automatically entitle the absconder to anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. In a trial against co-accused, the prosecution is not expected to adduce evidence against an absconding party; therefore, findings from that trial have no bearing on the absconder's independent trial - An accused cannot be permitted to "encash" on an acquittal achieved while they were making a mockery of the judicial process by fleeing.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Sections 438 & 439 — Appeal Against Grant of Bail vs. Cancellation of Bail — The considerations for an appellate court assessing the correctness of a bail order are distinct from those governing an application for cancellation of bail - While cancellation is based on "supervening circumstances" (e.g., misuse of liberty), an appeal tests whether the original order was perverse, illegal, or unjustified at the time of its passing - the post-bail conduct of an accused is irrelevant when determining the legality of the initial grant of bail in an appeal – Appeal allowed. [Relied on Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730; Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1; Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, (2021) 15 SCC 518; Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690; Paras 37-51]

Cause Title: BALMUKUND SINGH GAUTAM VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Click here to download judgment