Absconding Accused Not Entitled to Anticipatory Bail on Ground of Co-Accused’s Acquittal: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order

Held: The Supreme Court held that an absconding accused is ordinarily not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, and that subsequent acquittal of co-accused does not constitute a change in circumstance warranting parity. The Court ruled that where the accused had absconded for nearly six years, failed to cooperate with investigation, faced serious allegations including offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and the Arms Act, and had criminal antecedents along with allegations of threatening witnesses, the High Court’s grant of anticipatory bail was perverse and legally unsustainable. The Court further clarified that findings recorded in favour of co-accused in a concluded trial cannot enure to the benefit of an absconding accused whose case has not yet been tried.

Summary: The case arose from violent clashes on 02.06.2017 allegedly due to political rivalry, leading to registration of three FIRs, including the “Subject FIR” under Sections 341, 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, later adding Section 302 IPC after the death of one victim. The respondent-accused was named in the FIR but absconded from the date of incident. Letters were exchanged to initiate proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC, and rewards were announced for his arrest. His anticipatory bail applications were twice rejected by the High Court. In 2023, co-accused in the Subject FIR were acquitted, while the complainant was convicted in the cross-FIR. On this basis, the accused filed a third anticipatory bail application, and the High Court directed him to surrender and be granted regular bail the same day. The original complainant challenged this order. The Supreme Court examined settled principles governing anticipatory bail under Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar, Sushila Aggarwal and Mahipal, and reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy. The Court emphasised that absconding conduct, threats to witnesses (as reflected in FIR No.272/2019), non-recovery of firearms, and serious criminal antecedents weighed heavily against grant of pre-arrest bail. It also relied on Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police to hold that acquittal of co-accused cannot automatically benefit an absconding accused.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order dated 19.01.2024 granting anticipatory bail, and directed the accused to surrender before the concerned Court within four weeks. It clarified that the accused would be at liberty to seek regular bail upon surrender and that such application shall be decided independently on its own merits without being prejudiced by the present observations. Pending applications stood disposed of.