Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Anticipatory Bail Order For Long‑Absconding Accused, Directs Surrender Within Four Weeks

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi heard an appeal by the original complainant challenging the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur’s order dated 19.01.2024 disposing of the third anticipatory bail application of an accused who had been absconding since 02.06.2017. The High Court had disposed the application by directing the accused to surrender and move an application for regular bail and further directed the trial court to grant bail on the same day after imposing conditions.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Impugned Order and held that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion in granting anticipatory relief to an absconding accused. The Court reiterated the statutory and precedential framework governing Section 438 CrPC and observed that “anticipatory bail means ‘bail in anticipation of arrest’.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “It is thus a trite position that 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.” The Court further warned that “granting the relief of anticipatory bail to an absconding accused person sets a bad precedent” and directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within four weeks; the accused would remain free to seek regular bail, to be decided in accordance with law.

Background
The dispute arose from violent incidents on 02.06.2017 alleged to have been caused by political rivalry. Three FIRs were registered: FIR No.217/2017 at Betma (Indore Rural) by the original complainant against nine persons; FIR No.226/2017 (the Subject FIR) at Pithampur (Dhar) by the original complainant against fourteen persons including the accused, alleging wrongful restraint, stone‑pelting, use of swords and firearms, and death of Bablu Chaudhary (Section 302 IPC added after his death); and FIR No.227/2017 (the Cross FIR) by co‑accused Chandan Singh against nine persons including the original complainant. The accused remained absconding since the incident; police issued letters seeking property details and moved for proceedings under Sections 82/83 CrPC and Section 173(8) CrPC for a supplementary charge‑sheet, and rewards were announced for his arrest. No material established a valid proclamation under Section 82 CrPC on the record.

The accused’s anticipatory bail pleas before trial courts and the High Court were earlier dismissed; subsequent trial proceedings concluded with the trial court acquitting the named co‑accused in the Subject FIR (24.06.2023) while convicting the original complainant in proceedings arising from the Cross FIR. Relying on the acquittal of co‑accused, the High Court disposed the accused’s third anticipatory bail petition by directing surrender and regular bail. The original complainant appealed.

The Supreme Court reviewed authorities including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar, Sushila Aggarwal, and relevant recent precedents, and emphasised factors to be considered under Section 438 such as the nature and gravity of the accusation, likelihood of absconding, tampering with witnesses and criminal antecedents. Finding that the accused had been non‑cooperative, remained a fugitive, was alleged to have threatened an injured eyewitness (FIR No.272/2019), and had prior antecedents, the Court held that parity with acquitted co‑accused could not ipso facto entitle him to anticipatory bail and set aside the High Court’s order. The accused was directed to surrender within four weeks; liberty to seek regular bail was preserved. The Court clarified its observations were confined to the present proceedings and did not express any opinion on merits.

Case Details:
Case No.: 2026 INSC 157; Criminal Appeal No. … of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.15349 of 2024)
Case Title: Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]
For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 130