Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, VIJAY BISHNOI, JJ.
Balmukund Singh Gautam – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 885 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 15349 of 2024]
Decided On : 13-02-2026
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 482] – Anticipatory bail – Under criminal jurisprudence, anticipatory bail is a legal safeguard that is designed to protect individual liberty against arbitrary arrest in non-bailable offences – It is a pre-arrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on accusation in respect of which direction is issued, he shall be released on bail – Power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC vests only with Court of Sessions or High Court – Granting relief of anticipatory bail to an absconding accused person sets a bad precedent – Absconder is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail as a general rule, however, in certain exceptional cases, where on perusal of FIR, case diary and other relevant materials on record, Court is of prima facie opinion that no case is made out against absconding accused, then power of granting anticipatory bail may be exercised in favour of absconding accused – However, no such exceptional case is made out in favour of Accused as per documents on record. (Paras 36, 44 and 48)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 427, 294, 323, 147, 148 and 149 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 482] – Anticipatory bail application – Allegation of mob violence – Post-bail conduct is never a valid consideration while dealing with appeal against grant of bail, and such conduct is only relevant in application for cancellation of bail – Acquittal or conviction of co-accused cannot have any bearing on absconding accused – Accused has not only absconded from investigation but has also threatened to kill injured victim – Accusations against Accused have not been tried yet and are required to be independently examined and decided in course of separate trial – High Court in Impugned Order has not rightly exercised discretion to grant anticipatory bail – Accused directed to surrender before Court concerned within a period of four weeks. (Paras 45, 47, 48, 51 and 52)
Facts of the case:
The only question that requires determination in this appeal is whether High Court, by Impugned Order, is justified in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC to Accused?
Findings of Court:
After surrender, Accused will be free to seek regular bail before Court concerned, and any such prayer shall be decided in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by present judgment.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, primarily aims to provide a mechanism for senior citizens and parents to seek maintenance and ensure their welfare. While the provided legal document pertains to issues of bail, criminal proceedings, and the rights of accused persons, it does not directly address the provisions or principles of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
However, in the context of criminal proceedings, especially those involving offences against senior citizens or parents, the Act emphasizes the importance of protecting the rights and dignity of senior citizens. It mandates that the welfare of senior citizens should be a priority, and authorities are required to take suo-motu cognizance of cases where their rights are violated. The Act also provides for the appointment of Maintenance Tribunals and Maintenance Officers to facilitate claims for maintenance and welfare.
In relation to the legal principles discussed in the document, such as the importance of safeguarding individual rights, the need for proper investigation, and the exercise of judicial discretion, these can be aligned with the objectives of the Act. The Act underscores the importance of protecting vulnerable sections of society, including senior citizens, from exploitation and neglect, and ensuring their access to justice and welfare measures.
Therefore, although the specific case and legal principles in the document focus on bail and criminal procedural issues, the overarching legal framework of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, emphasizes the state's and judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights, dignity, and welfare of senior citizens, ensuring that they are not subjected to neglect or exploitation during criminal proceedings or otherwise.
JUDGMENT :
VIJAY BISHNOI, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the original complainant”) challenging the Order dated 19.01.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1047 of 2024 (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”) by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”) wherein the High Court disposed of the third anticipatory bail application filed by Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the Accused”), while directing the Accused to surrender before the trial Court and move an application for regular bail. The High Court further directed that the trial Court shall grant bail to the Accused on the same day after imposing adequate conditions in accordance with law.
3. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either side, we deem it appropriate to refer to the allegations contained in the FIRs lodged in the present case and the consequential proceedings that have followed their institution.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The offences in question occurred as a result of purported political rivalry between two groups. A total of three FIRs came to be lodged in connection with the incidents that happened on 02.06.2017:
A. Firstly, FIR No. 217/2017 came to be registered at the instance of the original complainant on 02.06.2017 with the Betma Police Station, District Indore (Rural) for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 294, 323, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) respectively against nine accused persons including the Accused and his father, co-accused Chandan Singh.
B. Secondly, FIR No. 226/2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Subject FIR”) wherein the Impugned Order of anticipatory bail was granted, came to be lodged by the original complainant on 03.06.2017 with the Pithampur Police Station, District Dhar for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 147, 148, 149, 307 of the IPC respectively and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 respectively against fourteen accused persons including the Accused and his father, co-accused Chandan Singh, alleging that on 02.06.2017, when the original complainant and his companions were returning after attending a function, they were wrongfully restrained near Ghatabillod Petrol Pump on Pithampur Road by the named accused, who stopped the original complainant’s Scorpio car, attacked them and damaged the car with stones, sticks, swords and gunfire with the intention of killing them. It is further alleged that when the original complainant later proceeded to report the matter near co-accused - Chandan Singh’s house, the named accused in the FIR, including the Accused, again blocked the way from both sides and attempted to kill them by firing guns, in which one Shailendra alias Pintu and one Bablu Chaudhary sustained bullet injuries. It is alleged that about 100-150 persons, with common intention, pelted stones, attacked with sticks and fired bullets. The injured Bablu Chaudhary later succumbed to his injuries, whereupon, Section 302 of the IPC was added to the Subject FIR.
C. Thirdly, FIR No. 227/2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cross FIR”) came to be registered by Co-accused - Chandan Singh on 03.06.2017 with the Pithampur Police Station, District Dhar for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 294, 506 of the IPC respectively and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 respectively against nine accused persons including the original complainant.
5. The post-mortem report of deceased Bablu Chaudhary, dated 03.06.2017, stated that the cause of death of the deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a result of firearm injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
6. The Accused had been absconding since the date of the incident, i.e. 02.06.2017. Consequently, the Pithampur Police Station addressed a letter dated 17.07.2017 to the Naib Tehsildar, Betma Tehsil, Indore, seeking details of th
(1) Anticipatory bail – Power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC vests only with Court of Sessions or High Court – Granting relief of anticipatory bail to an absconding accused pers....
An insurance policy remains valid for liability irrespective of ownership transfer if renewed properly.
The insurer is liable for compensation despite claims of negligence by the deceased, as the negligence of the bus driver was established.
Motor accident - Quantum of compensation - Appeal - It must necessarily follow that even major married and earning sons of deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation
The court established that the insurance company is liable under the doctrine of pay and recovery, enhancing compensation based on proper income assessment and applicable legal principles.
In accident cases, liability should reflect the respective negligence of parties, with proper income assessment inclusive of future prospects and non-pecuniary damages being essential for fair compen....
The court established the principle of pay and recover, holding the insurance company liable to pay first and then recover from the insured.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
