New Delhi: The Supreme Court on February 13, 2026, set aside an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court granting anticipatory bail to an accused who had been absconding for nearly six years in a case involving allegations of murder and attempt to murder arising out of political rivalry.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, in Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, held that the High Court had improperly exercised its discretion under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by extending pre-arrest protection to an accused who had evaded investigation since 2017 and against whom serious allegations, including under Section 302 IPC, were levelled.
The appeal was filed by the original complainant challenging the High Court’s order dated January 19, 2024, which had directed the accused to surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail, with a further direction that the trial court grant bail on the same day upon imposing adequate conditions.
The case arose out of three FIRs registered in June 2017 following violent clashes allegedly triggered by political rivalry. In the principal FIR, it was alleged that the accused, along with a mob of 100 to 150 persons armed with deadly weapons, attacked the complainant’s group, fired gunshots, and caused fatal injuries to one Bablu Chaudhary, who later succumbed. Section 302 IPC was subsequently added. A cross FIR was also registered by the rival group.
The accused had remained absconding from the date of the incident, and rewards had been announced for his arrest. Though steps were initiated for proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC, the record did not conclusively establish that he was formally declared a proclaimed offender. However, the Supreme Court held that even in the absence of a formal proclamation, his prolonged evasion of investigation disentitled him to anticipatory bail.
The Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy meant to protect individuals from arbitrary arrest and that it cannot be granted in a routine or mechanical manner. Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and earlier precedents such as Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, the Bench emphasised that courts must consider factors such as the gravity of the offence, likelihood of absconding, possibility of influencing witnesses, and overall impact on justice.
The Bench also relied on Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab to hold that even if there were procedural irregularities in declaring an accused an absconder, that by itself would not justify the grant of anticipatory bail in grave offences unless the case appeared prima facie false or exaggerated. No such exceptional circumstances were found in the present case.
Rejecting the High Court’s reliance on the acquittal of co-accused in the same case, the Supreme Court held that an absconding accused cannot claim parity on the basis of findings recorded in a trial in which he did not participate. Drawing support from the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police, the Court observed that during the trial of co-accused, the prosecution is neither expected nor obliged to adduce evidence against an absconding accused. Therefore, the acquittal of co-accused cannot ipso facto benefit the absconder.
The Court noted that the accused had criminal antecedents and was also accused of threatening an injured eyewitness, leading to a separate FIR in 2019. Firearms allegedly used in the incident had not yet been recovered. In these circumstances, the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail was held to be perverse and unjustified.
Addressing the argument that there was no allegation of post-bail misconduct, the Bench clarified that such considerations are relevant only in cancellation of bail proceedings, not while examining the legality of an order granting bail. The Court referred to Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi to reiterate that an appeal against the grant of bail is assessed on grounds such as perversity, illegality, and failure to consider relevant factors, and not on subsequent conduct.
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender before the concerned court within four weeks. It clarified that after surrender, the accused would be free to apply for regular bail, which shall be considered independently and without prejudice from the observations made in the present judgment.
Case Details:
Case Title: Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
Citation: 2026 INSC 157
Criminal Appeal arising out of: SLP (Criminal) No. 15349 of 2024
Date of Judgment: February 13, 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR; Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Adv.; Ms. Samridhi Bhatt, Adv.; Mr. Rahul Maheshwari, Adv.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR; Mr. Abhinav Srivastav, Adv.; Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv.; Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv.; Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv.; Mr. Mohd. Ibrahim, Adv.; Mr. Shivashish Joshi, Adv.; Mr. Pranav Diesh, Adv.; Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, AOR.
