In a reportable judgment delivered on 13.02.2026, the Supreme Court of India (Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi) has set aside the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in MCRC No. 1047 of 2024, which had effectively granted pre-arrest protection / assured bail upon surrender to an accused who, as recorded by the Court, had absconded since 02.06.2017 and had not cooperated with the investigation.

The Supreme Court has directed the accused to surrender before the competent court within four weeks from the date of the judgment, while clarifying that he may thereafter apply for regular bail, which shall be decided in accordance with law.

Key highlights: 

• High Court order set aside: Supreme Court found that the High Court did not exercise discretion correctly while granting relief in an anticipatory bail matter.
• Surrender directed: Accused directed to surrender within 4 weeks; liberty granted to seek regular bail after surrender.
• Abscondence matters: Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is not meant to protect a person who evades the process of law; as a general rule, an absconder is not entitled to such discretionary relief, except in truly exceptional situations (not found here).
• Parity rejected: Acquittal of co-accused cannot be “encashed” by an absconding accused to claim parity; findings in co-accused trial are irrelevant for deciding bail of a fugitive who never faced trial.
• Witness intimidation & antecedents noted: Supreme Court took note of the record relating to alleged threats to an injured eye-witness and criminal antecedents—core considerations in bail jurisprudence.

Case in brief

The matter (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15349 of 2024) was filed by the original complainant challenging the High Court’s order dated 19.01.2024, by which the High Court had disposed of the accused’s anticipatory bail application with a direction that upon surrender, the trial court would grant him bail on the same day after imposing conditions.

As recorded in the Supreme Court judgment, the allegations stem from an incident dated 02.06.2017 and connected FIRs arising out of political rivalry. The “Subject FIR” (in which the impugned bail order was passed) alleged a violent incident involving a large group, gunfire, and bullet injuries to victims; one injured later succumbed, leading to addition of Section 302 IPC, apart from serious allegations including Section 307 IPC and provisions of the Arms Act.

 

Why the Supreme Court intervened

1) Absconding since 2017 and non-cooperation with investigation

The Supreme Court recorded that the accused had been absconding since 02.06.2017. It noted steps taken by the investigating agency soon after the incident, including communications aimed at initiating proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC for proclamation/attachment against the absconding accused, and subsequent steps for supplementary investigation.

The Court reiterated that anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is a discretionary, equitable relief. Where an accused has consciously avoided investigation and the process of law, such relief is ordinarily not available, save for exceptional cases where the court is prima facie satisfied that no case is made out—an exception the Supreme Court found not established on the record before it.

2) “Parity” with co-accused acquittal cannot be claimed by a fugitive

A central basis for the High Court’s approach was the acquittal of co-accused in the Subject FIR trial (dated 24.06.2023), which the accused relied upon to seek relief.

The Supreme Court held that this approach was erroneous and perverse in the circumstances, explaining that:

• An absconding accused who never faced trial cannot claim parity with co-accused who stood trial; and
• During the trial of co-accused, the prosecution is not required to lead evidence against an absconder, rendering trial findings irrelevant to the fugitive’s bail plea.

3) Witness threat allegations and antecedents are critical bail factors

The Supreme Court took note of the record referring to alleged threats to an injured eye-witness (including reference to a separate FIR in that regard) and the existence of criminal antecedents, observing that such factors are central to assessing the likelihood of witness intimidation and obstruction of justice—recognized considerations in bail decisions.

The Court also reminded that appellate scrutiny of a bail order focuses on whether the discretion was exercised properly, consistent with settled bail principles—such as prima facie case, gravity, absconding risk, and likelihood of witnesses being influenced.

4) Strong message against incentivising evasion of law

In an important observation with broader implications, the Supreme Court stated that granting anticipatory bail to an absconding accused sets a bad precedent and risks incentivising evasion of the legal process, sending the wrong message vis-à-vis co-accused who comply with trial processes.

The Court further clarified that the defence argument about lack of “post-bail misconduct” is misconceived in an appeal against grant of bail: post-bail conduct is relevant to cancellation proceedings, not to deciding whether the original grant was legally justified.

Operative directions

Concluding that the High Court did not correctly exercise discretion in granting relief, the Supreme Court:

1. Set aside the High Court’s order dated 19.01.2024; and
2. Directed the accused to surrender within four weeks from 13.02.2026;
3. Clarified that after surrender, the accused may apply for regular bail, to be decided independently and in accordance with law.

Appearance and representation

The matter was listed for pronouncement on 13.02.2026. The petitioner was represented by Lahoti Advocates through Mr. Divyakant Lahoti (AoR) along with Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Ms. Samridhi Bhatt and Mr. Rahul Maheshwari, Advocates