Long-term abscondence justifies denying bail despite prolonged post-arrest custody.

The appellant filed a second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, presented as an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case arose from Crime No. 563/2008 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Raisen, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 307 and 302 of the IPC, Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 21 December 2008 the appellant and other accused persons intercepted the vehicle of the victims, fired upon it, caused injuries to Bablu Ahirwar and others, and killed Girish Sonkia.

The appellant was arrested on 28 March 2025, approximately 17 years after the incident.

His earlier bail application was dismissed on 2 February 2026.

He contended that the specific allegation of firing was against other accused persons, no firearm was recovered from him, similarly placed co-accused had obtained bail or suspension of sentence, and no witness had been examined since his arrest.

The State opposed bail on the ground of the appellant’s conduct and prolonged abscondence.

1. Whether the appellant was entitled to regular bail under Section 439 CrPC, read with Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act, despite the seriousness of the offences and his having remained absconding for approximately 17 years.

2. Whether the appellant’s alleged role, parity with co-accused, prolonged custody after arrest, and asserted right to speedy trial justified his release on bail.

The Court considered the power to grant regular bail under Section 439 CrPC and the appellate jurisdiction under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act in relation to offences under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 and 506 IPC, Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

It applied the settled principle that bail is not to be withheld as punishment and that an accused has a constitutional right to a reasonably speedy trial under Article 21, relying on Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi).

The Court also considered the principle that abscondence, by itself, should not automatically defeat a bail claim, as reflected in the authorities cited by the appellant, including S.K. Yusuf v. State of West Bengal, Matru v. State of U.P., Thimma v. State of Mysore, State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma and Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi).

However, bail remained discretionary and had to be assessed against the gravity of the offences, the prosecution material, the accused’s conduct, and the likelihood of securing his presence at trial.

The Court acknowledged that bail cannot be denied merely as a punitive measure and that speedy trial is an important Article 21 consideration.

Nevertheless, the material showed that the appellant was allegedly part of an armed group that intercepted the victims’ vehicle, and that firearms and empty cartridges were recovered from the spot.

The Court attached significant weight to the appellant’s conduct: he remained absconding for 17 years, while proclamation proceedings and action under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC had been taken against him.

The Court held that his subsequent employment and business did not establish that he was unaware of the criminal case.

It further distinguished his position from the co-accused because all the co-accused had been convicted of murder, attempt to murder and causing injuries; none had been acquitted.

In that context, the appellant’s custody of approximately one and a half years after his arrest was not considered excessive, notwithstanding his reliance on the absence of substantial trial progress and the bail granted to co-accused.

Considering the gravity of the allegations, the prosecution material, the appellant’s 17-year abscondence, the pending criminal consequences of the prior convictions of the co-accused, and the fact that his post-arrest detention was not excessive in the circumstances, the Court declined to grant bail.

The second bail application/appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act was accordingly dismissed.