Acquittal of Co-Accused Does Not Benefit Fugitives; Supreme Court Quashes Anticipatory Bail

With a praying for cancellation of bail of accused that was granted to the accused after him being a fugitive for about 6 years, the appellant/defacto complainant appeared before the Supreme Court.

Holding that the fugitives are generally ineligible for pre-arrest bail, the Supreme Court clarified that the acquittal of co-accused of those individual provides no-partity ground for an absconder who evaded the trial process.

Background: The matter is stemming from a violent incident from political rivalry in 2017 which resulted in the death of one individual and firearm injuries. All the accused were tried by the trial court and eventually acquitted in 2023, however, the Respondent/Accused remained fugitive for approximately six and a half years, evading arrest despite rewards being announced by the police making him a fugitive.

Following the acquittal of the other co-accused, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh disposed of the appellant/accused's third anticipatory bail application with a controversial direction, in which it has directed to surrender before the trial court and upon such surrender mandated the trial court to grant him regular bail on the same day.

This judgment serves as a guide to reinforce the strict standards governing the grant of pre-arrest bail, particularly concerning those who circumvent the judicial process and issued following directions:

Reaffirming the principle laid by Delhi High Court, in case of Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), wherein it was held that an absconder is generally not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail except in cases where the FIR is prima facie false, the Supreme Court reitrated that *"44. It is thus a trite position that an absconder is generally not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail as a general rule, however, in certain exceptional cases, where on a perusal of the FIR, case diary and other relevant materials on record, the Court is of the prima facie opinion that no case is made out against the absconding accused" the Court found that a person who evades investigation for six years and fails to cooperate with the law makes a "mockery of the judicial process".

Rejecting the arguments that the acquittal of co-accused constituted a "change in circumstance" which favors even the fugitive the Supreme Court observed that during a trial of co-accused, the prosecution is not expected to adduce evidence against an absconding party. Therefore, the failure to prove charges against those who stood trial does not automatically exonerate the one who fled.

The Apex Court further noted that granting anticipatory bail to a long-term absconder sets a "bad precedent" as it rewards those who evade the law while penalizing law-abiding citizens who diligently attend trial, thereby incentivizing people to evade the process of law with impunity.

Explaining the "Distinction Between Appeal Against Grant and Cancellation of Bail" the Court clarified that an appeal challenging the initial grant of bail is tested on the anvil of perversity or illegality. On contrarary to that, post-bail conduct or the violation of conditions is only relevant for an application for "cancellation" of bail and cannot be used to justify a legally unsound original order.

Taking the note of the accused's criminal antecedents and the credible allegations of threatening a witness, the Apex Court observed that firearms involved in the murder had yet to be recovered, further necessitating a refusal of pre-arrest protection.

Thus, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the High Court's order, setting yet another precedent thereby denying a bail to a fugitive, and has directed the accused to surrender within four weeks.

Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi.