Accused Declared as an Absconder Is Not Entitled to the Grant of Anticipatory Bail

The applicant filed for anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 415/2024, involving allegations of bank fraud, identity theft, and forgery under Sections 419, 420, 467, 478, 471, 120(B), and 34 of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that a fraudulent bank account was opened using an invalid Aadhaar card, into which ₹20,00,000 was transferred via RTGS

The applicant’s name surfaced in the memorandum statement of a co-accused

Since the registration of the FIR in September 2024, the applicant remained at large, and the police eventually submitted a charge sheet identifying him as an absconder

1. Whether an applicant who has been declared an absconder in the charge sheet and has failed to cooperate with the investigation is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suruksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the grant of anticipatory bail

The court relied on the established legal principle that discretionary relief of anticipatory bail should be denied to persons evading the process of law, as held 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

The Court evaluated the applicant’s plea for parity with a co-accused who was granted bail in October 2024

The Court distinguished the applicant's position, noting that while the co-accused sought timely relief, the applicant had been absconding since the inception of the case in 2024

The Court emphasized that the charge sheet specifically classified the applicant as an absconder

By applying the precedents of Lavesh and Pradeep Sharma, the Court reasoned that the applicant's failure to cooperate with the investigating agency and his conduct in evading arrest disqualified him from the benefit of pre-arrest bail, as such relief is not intended for those who defy the legal process

The Court held that given the applicant’s status as an absconder and his lack of cooperation with the investigation, it was not a fit case to enlarge him on anticipatory bail

The application was accordingly dismissed