In a stern message against evasion of justice, the Supreme Court on Friday set aside the anticipatory bail granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court to a murder accused who had remained absconding for over six years after a 2017 mob attack that left one person dead and several others injured.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi cancelled the bail, calling the High Court’s order “completely erroneous and perverse,” and directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within four weeks. The bench, however, gave liberty to the accused to apply for regular bail, which would be considered on its own merits.
The incident relates to a violent clash between two political groups in Madhya Pradesh on June 2, 2017. The prosecution alleged that the accused, son of co-accused Chandan Singh, was part of an armed mob that attacked the complainant’s group using swords, sticks, and firearms. The assault led to the death of Bablu Chaudhary and left several, including an eyewitness named Shailendra alias Pintu, severely injured.
While multiple co-accused were arrested, faced trial, and were acquitted in June 2023, the present accused managed to evade arrest for more than six years. His earlier bail pleas had been rejected and rewards had been announced for his capture.
In January 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court granted him anticipatory bail, relying on the parity principle, citing the acquittal of co-accused and the alleged absence of “cogent material” against him.
The top court strongly disapproved of this approach, ruling that:
“The accused cannot be permitted to encash on the acquittal of the co-accused persons… especially when he had been absconding for about six years and made a mockery of the judicial process.”
Justice Bishnoi, authoring the judgment, reiterated that absconders are generally not entitled to anticipatory bail. He said that such relief can only be considered in exceptional cases, where the FIR and case materials fail to disclose any prima facie case—circumstances that were not present here.
The court underscored the damaging effect of such bail orders:
“Such orders suggest that the co-accused, who diligently attended the trial, were wrong to do so and that the law incentivises people to evade the process of law with impunity.”
The bench also noted that the accused had allegedly threatened to kill the injured eyewitness, further complicating the matter. Significantly, although the State of Madhya Pradesh had not filed an appeal against the anticipatory bail order, it fully supported the complainant’s challenge before the Supreme Court.
“We fail to understand why the respondent State, for reasons best known to it, has not filed an appeal… when in fact it has fully supported the appellant/original complainant’s case,” the court remarked.
While cancelling the anticipatory bail, the court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not prejudice any future application for regular bail or the outcome of the trial.
