Post-Bail Conduct Irrelevant In Appeal Against Grant Of Bail: Supreme Court Rejects Absconding Accused's Anticipatory Bail
|Such conduct is relevant only in cancellation proceedings; absconding accused cannot derive benefit from co-accused’s acquittal
The Supreme Court while refusing bail to an absconding co-accused has held that post-bail conduct is never a valid consideration while dealing with an appeal against grant of bail, and such conduct is only relevant in an application for cancellation of bail.
The bench further said that an absconding accused cannot take advantage of the acquittal of co-accused persons to secure anticipatory bail. The bench, thus, set aside Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order that had granted pre-arrest protection solely on the ground that the prosecution failed to produce cogent evidence and that certain findings recorded during the co-accused’s trial favoured the applicant.
Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice J.B. Pardiwala on the contention that that there were no allegations of post-bail misconduct or violation of bail conditions against the accused, observed, “…However, the said contention is entirely misconceived and legally unsound since post-bail conduct is never a valid consideration while dealing with an appeal against grant of bail, and such conduct is only relevant in an application for cancellation of bail. Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi and Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690, wherein this Court laid down the relevant considerations for an appeal against order granting bail”.
“It is apposite to mention that 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 and further, incentivises people to evade the process of law with impunity”, the bench further observed.
Advocate Vindhya Mehra appeared for the appellant and Advocate Maitreyee Jagat Joshi appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, three separate FIRs were registered arising out of the same incident involving allegations of serious criminal offences. The third FIR, which was the subject FIR, was filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 294, 506 of the IPC respectively and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
While some of the co-accused faced trial and were ultimately acquitted by the trial court in its judgment dated 24 June 2023, the present accused did not participate in the trial and remained absconding for nearly six years, thereby evading the process of law. Subsequently, he approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
The appeal was preferred by the Appellant (the original complainant) challenging the orders by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, whereby the High Court disposed of the third anticipatory bail application filed by Respondent No.2 (the Accused), while directing the Accused to surrender before the trial Court and move an application for regular bail.
The High Court had further directed that the trial Court shall grant bail to the Accused on the same day after imposing adequate conditions in accordance with law. The Court had granted him relief primarily on the ground that the co-accused had already been acquitted and that there was no cogent evidence produced against him.
Now, the Supreme Court found this reasoning to be “completely erroneous and perverse”, it noted “…the said consideration is completely erroneous and perverse in an anticipatory bail application, especially when the Accused had been absconding for about 6 years and made a mockery of the judicial process. In view of such circumstances, the Accused cannot be permitted to encash on the acquittal of the co-accused persons. Further, the High Court failed to consider that any finding recorded by the trial Court either against or in favour of the absconding Accused is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the bail application as the prosecution was not required to produce any evidence against the absconding Accused during the trial of the co-accused persons”.
The Court observed that permitting such an accused to “encash” the acquittal of co-accused would amount to rewarding evasion of law.
The Bench clarified that any findings recorded by the trial court, whether in favour of or against an absconding accused are wholly irrelevant while considering his bail application. Since the accused had not faced trial, the prosecution was under no obligation to produce evidence against him during the co-accused’s trial.
Therefore, relying on the principle laid down in Moosa v. Sub-Inspector of Police 2005 SCC OnLine Ker 605, the Court emphasised that proceedings against an absconding accused stand on a different footing, and conclusions drawn in a split-up trial cannot automatically benefit the one who deliberately avoided participation.
In strong words, the Court cautioned that granting anticipatory bail to an absconder sends a dangerous message. It observed that such an approach would undermine law-abiding co-accused who diligently attended trial, incentivise individuals to evade the legal process, erode public confidence in the administration of justice.
The Court remarked that judicial discretion must not be exercised in a manner that rewards non-cooperation with the legal system.
Cause Title: Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 157]
Appearances:
Appellant: Divyakant Lahoti, AOR, Vindhya Mehra, Samridhi Bhatt, Rahul Maheshwari, Praveena Bisht, Kartik Lahoti, K Vinayakam Gupta, Siddharth Tripathi, Akanksha Soni, Shubheksha Dwivedi, Advocates.
Respondents: Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, Akanksha Tomar, Mohd. Ibrahim, Shivashish Joshi, Pranav Diesh, Ashutosh Kumar, AOR, Advocates.