Facts: The case involves a violent clash arising from political rivalry on 02.06.2017, resulting in three FIRs. In the "Subject FIR" (No. 226/2017), the Accused (Respondent No. 2) was charged with murder under Section 302 IPC and other offenses after a victim succumbed to bullet injuries. While other co-accused faced trial and were eventually acquitted in 2023, the Accused remained absconding for approximately six and a half years. During this period, he allegedly threatened a key witness, leading to an additional FIR in 2019. After the acquittal of his co-accused, the Accused filed a third anticipatory bail application before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
Procedural Posture: The High Court, via the Impugned Order dated 19.01.2024, effectively granted anticipatory bail by directing the Accused to surrender and move for regular bail, while simultaneously ordering the trial court to grant said bail on the same day. The original complainant (Appellant) challenged this order before the Supreme Court of India.
Issue: Whether an accused person who has been absconding for several years and evading investigation is entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail solely on the ground of the acquittal of co-accused persons.
Holding: No, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in granting such relief. The Impugned Order was set aside, and the Accused was directed to surrender within four weeks.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that as a general rule, an absconder is not entitled to anticipatory bail unless the case is shown to be prima facie false or exaggerated, which was not the situation here. The Court emphasized that the acquittal of co-accused does not automatically benefit an absconding accused on the ground of parity, as the prosecution is not required to lead evidence against a fugitive during the trial of others. Furthermore, the High Court failed to consider the Accused's questionable conduct, his serious criminal antecedents, and the specific allegations of witness intimidation. The Court also clarified that post-bail conduct is relevant for "cancellation" of bail but irrelevant when a superior court is testing the "legality" of the initial grant of bail.