Accused declared as absconders are ineligible for the grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 329/2017, registered for offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The complainant, Dwarika Prasad Sahu, alleged that the applicant and a co-accused took ₹30,00,000/- under the false pretext of securing jobs for his son and daughter at NRDA and AIIMS.

While a portion of the money was returned, the balance remained unpaid. Although the police filed a charge sheet, the applicant was listed as "absconding".

The applicant contended the matter was a simple monetary dispute and that no formal proclamation proceedings had been initiated.

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant’s three criminal antecedents, two of which involved permanent arrest warrants, and noted that a previous anticipatory bail application in a different matter had been rejected.

Whether an applicant shown as an absconder in the charge sheet is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the grant of anticipatory bail.

The principles established by the Supreme Court in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171, which mandate that an accused who has been declared an absconder or has failed to cooperate with the investigation should generally not be granted the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

The court evaluated the nature of the allegations, specifically the job fraud and the significant sum of money involved.

The court placed heavy emphasis on the applicant’s procedural conduct and criminal history. It noted that the applicant had three criminal antecedents and was facing permanent arrest warrants in two other cases.

Applying the 'Rule of Law' from the Lavesh and Pradeep Sharma precedents, the court determined that because the applicant was listed as an absconder in the charge sheet and had a history of non-cooperation with legal processes, the discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail could not be exercised in his favor.

The court also noted the recent rejection of a similar bail application for the applicant in another crime (MCRCA No. 446/2026).

The application was officially rejected.