The Supreme Court on Friday set aside an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had granted anticipatory bail to an accused in a 2017 political clash that left one man dead and another injured.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi ruled that an absconding accused cannot take advantage of the acquittal of co-accused to seek protection from arrest. The court said such relief “sends a wrong message” and undermines the criminal justice process.
The judgment came in BalMukund Singh Gautam vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Read also:- Bombay HC Disposes Unmarried Woman’s Abortion Plea, Cites Supreme Court Ruling on MTP Rights
Background of the Case
The case stems from a violent clash on June 2, 2017, allegedly triggered by political rivalry between two groups in Madhya Pradesh.
An FIR accused 14 persons, including the present accused, of forming an unlawful assembly and attacking the complainant’s group with stones, sticks, swords and firearms. One person, Bablu Chaudhary, later died due to gunshot injuries. Another victim, Shailendra alias Pintu, survived with bullet wounds.
A cross-FIR was also registered by the rival group.
During trial, all accused except the present respondent were acquitted in 2023. The trial court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the fatal bullet was fired by the named accused.
However, the present accused had been absconding since 2017. He did not participate in the investigation or trial. Police had even announced a reward for his arrest.
In 2024, citing the acquittal of co-accused, he approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court for anticipatory bail. The High Court directed him to surrender and ordered that he be granted regular bail the same day with conditions.
This order was challenged before the Supreme Court by the original complainant.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Forgery Case Linked to 1963 Land Deed, Orders Police Prob
Arguments Before the Court
The complainant argued that the accused had deliberately evaded the law for nearly six years and could not now claim protection.
It was also pointed out that another FIR had been filed in 2019 alleging that the accused threatened the injured eyewitness not to oppose his bail plea.
The State supported the complainant’s stand. It told the court that the accused had criminal antecedents and that firearms allegedly used in the crime had not yet been recovered.
The defence, however, argued that the accused was never formally declared a proclaimed offender. It also claimed that since co-accused had been acquitted, parity should apply.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Flags Flawed Tree-Felling Notices, Closes Pune Coconut Trees Case
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court framed a clear question: whether the High Court was justified in granting anticipatory bail to a person who had remained absconding for years.
The bench reiterated that anticipatory bail is a pre-arrest protection meant to safeguard personal liberty - not to shield those who evade investigation.
“The conduct of the accused throughout the investigation has been highly questionable,” the bench observed.
Even if there was some procedural lapse in declaring him a proclaimed offender, the court said that would not entitle him to anticipatory bail in a serious offence involving murder.
The judges made it clear that acquittal of co-accused does not automatically benefit an absconding accused.
“The accused cannot be permitted to encash on the acquittal of the co-accused persons,” the court stated.
It further added that in a trial against co-accused, the prosecution is not required to lead evidence against an absconding person. Therefore, findings recorded in such a trial cannot be used to seek bail later.
The court also expressed concern that granting anticipatory bail to absconders could set a dangerous precedent.
“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 bench noted.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Orders Probe Into ₹14 Lakh Sabarimala Staff Transfers During Mandala
The Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had not properly exercised its discretion. It found the order granting anticipatory bail to be unjustified.
The impugned order dated January 19, 2024, was set aside.
The court directed the accused to surrender before the concerned court within four weeks. It clarified that after surrender, he is free to apply for regular bail, which shall be decided independently and according to law.
With these directions, the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: BalMukund Singh Gautam vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 15349 of 2024
Decision Date: 13 February 2026
