Absconding during trial remains significant ground for bail denial regardless of co-accused's acquittal or witness hostility.

The applicant, Ramzan Khan, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 249/2023 for allegedly participating in a pre-planned conspiracy to defraud individuals by promising Group D railway jobs using forged documents.

While co-accused persons were tried and some acquitted, the applicant remained absconding, leading to the separation of his trial.

His first bail application (MCRC No. 3889 of 2025) was rejected on 20.05.2025 specifically due to his abscondence.

The applicant filed this second bail application arguing that the main accused had been acquitted, two out of six witnesses had turned hostile, and he had been in custody since 15.01.2025.

1. Whether the acquittal of a co-accused and the hostile testimony of two witnesses entitle an applicant, who was previously absconding, to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The court followed the principles governing regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) for offences under Sections 420 (Cheating), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 120-B (Criminal conspiracy), and 34 (Common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

The court emphasized the judicial principle that the conduct of the accused, specifically the history of absconding during trial, is a critical factor in determining the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice if released.

The court analyzed the applicant's plea by weighing the evidentiary developments—the acquittal of the main accused and hostile witnesses—against the applicant’s prior conduct.

The Chief Justice noted that while two witnesses failed to support the prosecution, this circumstance alone is insufficient to override the gravity of the applicant's previous abscondence.

The court reasoned that since the applicant’s trial had to be separated from the co-accused due to his unavailability, the acquittal of others does not automatically translate to his entitlement for bail.

The court maintained that the risk of the applicant absconding again outweighed the arguments regarding the merits of the evidence produced thus far.

The High Court rejected the bail application but clarified that the trial court is at liberty to conclude proceedings expeditiously.

The office was directed to communicate the order to the trial court for compliance.