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

The Supreme Court has held that the principle of parity cannot be invoked by an absconder who deliberately evades trial, to seek an anticipatory bail merely because a co-accused has been acquitted in a trial.

The Court observed that "granting the relief of anticipatory bail to an absconding accused person sets a bad precedent and sends a message that the law-abiding co-accused persons who stood trial, were wrong to diligently attend the process of trial and further, incentivises people to evade the process of law with impunity."

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi heard the case where the complainant was aggrieved by the MP High Court's Indore Bench order granting an anticipatory bail to the Respondent No.2-accused, who was declared an absconder, merely because the co-accused persons in the subject FIR were acquitted by the trial court.

Challenging the High Court's order, the complainant moved to the Supreme Court, arguing that parity cannot be claimed by an absconding accused, and that the co-accused's acquittal was based on evidence specific to them, having no bearing on the accused. He contended that the co-accused person's acquittal did not amount to a change in circumstances to grant him an anticipatory bail, especially since the accused's earlier anticipatory bail pleas had already been rejected.

The Respondent No.1-State also supported the complainant's appeal, but their decision not to appeal against the High Court's decision granting an anticipatory bail to the accused was questioned by the Supreme Court.

Finding force in the Appellant's contention, the judgment authored by Justice Bishnoi observed:

“…the ground raised by the (Absconder) Accused that other co-accused in the Subject FIR have been acquitted by the trial Court…does not ipso facto entitle him to the relief of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity, particularly when the Accused himself failed to cooperate with the Court and delayed the trial of the other co-accused by absconding.”

The High Court granted anticipatory bail solely on the absence of cogent evidence and the acquittal of the co-accused, a reasoning termed as erroneous by the Supreme Court since the accused had absconded for nearly six years and could not rely on findings in the co-accused's trial, which were irrelevant to his bail plea.

“the High Court, by way of the Impugned Order, granted anticipatory bail to the Accused solely based on the fact that the prosecution failed to produce any cogent evidence proving the involvement of the accused persons named in the Subject FIR, in the alleged offence. The High Court also took note of certain findings recorded in favour of the Accused by the trial Court in its judgment dated 24.06.2023 acquitting the co-accused. However, 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. Further, the High Court failed to consider that any finding recorded by the trial Court either against or in favour of the absconding Accused is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the bail application as the prosecution was not required to produce any evidence against the absconding Accused during the trial of the co-accused persons…,”, the court observed.

Absconder Is Entitled To Anticipatory Bail In Exceptional Cases Where Prima Facie No Case Is Made Out

The Court clarified that though “an absconder is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail as a general rule, however, in certain exceptional cases, where on a perusal of the FIR, case diary and other relevant materials on record, the Court is of the prima facie opinion that no case is made out against the absconding accused, then the power of granting anticipatory bail may be exercised in favour of the absconding accused.”

Applying the law, the Court held that the High Court in the Impugned Order had not rightly exercised the discretion to grant the anticipatory bail, as it was not a fit case in which the discretion of granting anticipatory bail could be exercised.

“The Accused was a member of the mob, as disclosed in the Subject FIR, and has not only absconded from the investigation but has also threatened to kill the injured victim Shailendra alias Pintu, who was also the eye witness in respect of the Subject FIR, for opposing his bail application, and this fact can also be corroborated by the registration of FIR No.272/2019 dated 10.05.2019 against the Accused.”, the Court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the Accused was directed to surrender before the Court concerned within a period of four weeks from the date of judgment, i.e., Feb. 13, 2026.

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 158

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Adv. Ms. Samridhi Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Rahul Maheshwari, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Abhinav Srivastav, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Ibrahim, Adv. Mr. Shivashish Joshi, Adv. Mr. Pranav Diesh, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, AOR