Tacit Legal 15-Feb-2026
In a significant ruling reinforcing the sanctity of the criminal justice process, the Supreme Court has held that an absconding accused cannot invoke the principle of parity to seek anticipatory bail solely on the ground that co-accused persons have been acquitted after trial.
A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi delivered the judgment in Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to an accused who had been declared an absconder.
Principle of Parity Cannot Be Used as a Shield by an Absconder
The Court categorically observed:-
“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 respondent-accused had been declared an absconder and remained away from the process of law for nearly six years. However, after the co-accused were acquitted by the trial court, he approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.
The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail primarily on two grounds:
Absence of cogent evidence.
Acquittal of co-accused in the same FIR. The complainant challenged this order before the Supreme Court.
Acquittal of Co-Accused Is Not a Change in Circumstances for an Absconder
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that:
The acquittal of co-accused was based on evidence specific to them.
The absconding accused cannot benefit from findings recorded in a trial in which he never participated. Earlier anticipatory bail applications of the accused had already been rejected.
The accused had deliberately evaded the trial and delayed proceedings. Accepting these submissions, the Court held:
“…the ground raised by the (Absconder) Accused that other co-accused in the Subject FIR have been acquitted… does not ipso facto entitle him to the relief of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity, particularly when the Accused himself failed to cooperate with the Court and delayed the trial of the other co-accused by absconding.”
The Court further clarified that findings recorded in the co-accused’s trial whether favourable or adverse are wholly irrelevant for deciding an anticipatory bail application of an absconder, because the prosecution was not required to produce evidence against him during that trial.
High Court’s Approach Termed “Erroneous and Perverse”
The Supreme Court strongly disapproved the reasoning of the High Court, observing that:-
The accused had absconded for about six years. He allegedly threatened an injured eyewitness (Shailendra alias Pintu).
A separate FIR (No. 272/2019 dated 10.05.2019) had been registered against him.
The Court held that the High Court’s reliance on the acquittal of co-accused was “completely erroneous and perverse” in the facts of the case.
An absconding accused, the Court emphasized, cannot “encash” upon the acquittal of others after deliberately evading the judicial process.
Exception: When Can an Absconder Be Granted Anticipatory Bail? Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that:
Although an absconder is not entitled to anticipatory bail as a general rule, in exceptional cases where upon a prima facie examination of the FIR, case diary and materials on record no case is made out the Court may still exercise discretion to grant anticipatory bail.
However, in the present case, the Court found: The accused was named as a member of the mob in the FIR. He absconded during investigation. There were allegations of intimidation of a key witness. Thus, it was not a fit case to exercise discretion.
Case :-
BALMUKUND SINGH GAUTAM VS ST OF MP
SLP criminal No 15349 of 2024
