Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case

“An Absconder Cannot Encash the Acquittal of Co-Accused” – In a significant pronouncement reaffirming the limits of judicial discretion under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court on 13 February 2026 set aside the anticipatory bail granted to an accused who had allegedly remained absconding for nearly six years in a murder case involving unlawful assembly and firearm injuries.

Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that “as a general rule, an absconder is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail,” and cautioned that courts must not permit an accused to take advantage of his own evasion of law.

The Court allowed the appeal filed by the original complainant, quashed the High Court’s order dated 19.01.2024, and directed the accused to surrender within four weeks, leaving it open for him to seek regular bail in accordance with law.

Political Rivalry, Gunfire and Death

The case arose from violent clashes on 02.06.2017 allegedly triggered by political rivalry. According to the “Subject FIR,” a group of accused persons formed an unlawful assembly, wrongfully restrained the complainant’s vehicle, attacked with sticks and firearms, and opened fire. One person, Bablu Chaudhary, succumbed to firearm injuries, while another, Shailendra alias Pintu, sustained gunshot wounds.

The post-mortem report recorded that death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage caused by firearm injuries “sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.” Charges under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act were invoked.

Notably, the accused remained absconding from the very date of the incident. Rewards were announced for his arrest and steps were initiated under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC. Yet, he did not cooperate with investigation for years.

High Court’s Order: Bail on the Strength of Acquittal of Co-Accused

After two earlier anticipatory bail applications were rejected, the accused filed a third application in 2024, citing the acquittal of co-accused persons by the trial court in June 2023. The High Court directed him to surrender and move for regular bail, further directing the trial court to grant bail on the same day after imposing conditions.

The Supreme Court found this approach legally unsustainable.

The Bench observed that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused in the FIR, his prolonged abscondence, criminal antecedents, and allegations of witness intimidation. Such an order, the Court held, reflected non-application of mind and amounted to a perverse exercise of discretion.

“As a General Rule, an Absconder Is Not Entitled to Anticipatory Bail”

The Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is a pre-arrest legal safeguard meant to protect liberty against arbitrary arrest, not to shelter those who deliberately evade the process of law.

“It is thus a trite position that an absconder is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail as a general rule,” the Bench declared.

While acknowledging that exceptional circumstances may justify anticipatory bail even for an absconder, the Court clarified that such relief is permissible only where the Court is prima facie satisfied that the case is one of false or exaggerated implication. No such exceptional circumstance was demonstrated in the present case.

Even assuming procedural defects in proclamation under Section 82 CrPC, the Court held that such technical irregularities do not enure to the benefit of an accused who has failed to cooperate with investigation in a grave offence.

“Acquittal of Co-Accused Does Not Ipso Facto Entitle an Absconding Accused to Bail”

One of the central arguments advanced by the accused was that since the co-accused had been acquitted after trial, he too was entitled to anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.

The Supreme Court firmly rejected this contention.

“Acquittal of co-accused does not ipso facto entitle him to the relief of anticipatory bail,” the Court held, emphasizing that the accusations against the absconding accused have not yet been tested at trial and must be independently examined.

Relying on the Full Bench decision in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police, the Court explained that in a trial against co-accused, the prosecution is neither required nor expected to adduce evidence against an absconding accused. Therefore, findings recorded in such trial are wholly irrelevant while considering anticipatory bail of the absconder.

The Bench cautioned that permitting such parity would allow an accused to “encash on the acquittal of the co-accused” after having delayed the process of law by absconding.

Witness Intimidation and Criminal Antecedents

The Court took serious note of FIR No. 272/2019 lodged by the injured eyewitness, alleging that the accused threatened him with death if he opposed the bail application. Security had even been provided to the witness by the trial court.

Additionally, multiple criminal cases were pending against the accused. The alleged firearms had not been recovered.

These circumstances, the Court held, demonstrated a real risk of witness intimidation and obstruction of justice—factors which the High Court failed to consider while granting anticipatory bail.

Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Perverse Orders Can Be Set Aside

Addressing the argument that there was no post-bail misconduct, the Supreme Court clarified that post-bail conduct is relevant only in cancellation proceedings and not in an appeal against grant of bail.

Citing settled law, the Court held that an appellate court can interfere where the order granting bail is “perverse, illegal, or unjustified” or where relevant considerations such as gravity of offence and impact on society have been ignored.

The impugned order, the Bench concluded, suffered from such infirmities and warranted interference.

“Courts Must Not Incentivise Evasion of Law”

In a telling observation, the Supreme Court remarked:

“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.”

The Court underscored that the judicial process must not reward evasion. Liberty is precious, but it cannot be invoked as a shield by one who has made a mockery of the rule of law.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 19.01.2024 and directed the accused to surrender before the concerned court within four weeks. It clarified that the accused is at liberty to seek regular bail, which shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by observations in the present judgment.

Date of Decision: 13 February 2026