Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr, 2026

The complainant challenged the MP High Court, Indore Bench order, which granted anticipatory bail to Respondent No.2, an accused declared absconder, merely because co-accused were acquitted.

Respondent No.2 had absconded for nearly six years, delaying the trial of co-accused.

The High Court granted bail based solely on the acquittal of co-accused and lack of cogent evidence, ignoring absconder status.

Complainant argued that parity cannot be claimed by an absconding accused, as co-accused acquittal was case-specific and irrelevant.

The State supported the complainant, though it had not initially challenged the High Court’s order.

The accused had threatened the injured victim and eyewitness, Shailendra alias Pintu, during the bail proceedings.

FIR No. 272/2019 against the accused highlighted mob participation, absconding, and threat to life of witness.

The Supreme Court emphasized that granting anticipatory bail to an absconder sets a bad precedent and incentivizes evasion of law.

Exceptionally, an absconder may get bail if prima facie no case is made out after reviewing FIR, case diary, and other materials.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order granting anticipatory bail to the absconding accused.

Observed that parity cannot be invoked by an absconder; acquittal of co-accused is irrelevant.

High Court’s reliance on co-accused acquittal and absence of cogent evidence was erroneous and perverse.

Absconding status, delay in trial, and threats to eyewitness were material factors against bail.

Clarified that anticipatory bail for absconders is only possible in exceptional cases where prima facie no case is made out.

Directed the accused to surrender within four weeks from the date of judgment.

The Court reinforced the principle of judicial discipline and responsibility of accused to cooperate with trial.

Established that parity argument cannot override public interest and trial integrity.

Clarified discretionary powers for anticipatory bail in the context of absconding accused.

Emphasized safeguarding witnesses and law-abiding co-accused as critical considerations.

Highlighted that High Court misapplied the law by ignoring absconder status.

The judgment strengthens deterrence against evasion of judicial process.

Provides a clear precedent for handling anticipatory bail applications by absconding accused, aligning with principles of justice and equity.