The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that repeated abuse of bail liberty is a decisive factor in denying future bail, irrespective of the nature of the offence. This judgment underscores that judicial trust, once broken, cannot be easily restored, and procedural compliance is non-negotiable in criminal justice.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Tarun alias Goldi, was arrested on 30 June 2025 in connection with Crime No. 56/2020 registered at Police Station Surpura, District Bhind, for offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act. The case stems from his repeated failure to comply with bail conditions granted by the same court over multiple instances.
Procedural History
- April 2021: The petitioner was initially granted bail by the High Court.
- 2021 - 2023: He remained absent from trial proceedings, citing labour work outside the city, without submitting documentary proof.
- January 2024: His bail bonds were forfeited and a warrant of arrest was issued.
- December 2024: A perpetual warrant was issued due to continued non-appearance.
- June 2025: He was re-arrested and filed this bail application under Section 483 of the BNS (equivalent to Section 439 CrPC).
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought regular bail, arguing that he had not been convicted and that the trial was unduly delayed. He claimed his absence was due to economic necessity and lack of awareness of court dates.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether repeated violation of bail conditions, coupled with prolonged absence from trial and failure to provide credible justification, justifies the denial of bail even in non-bailable offences under Section 307 IPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the accused had not been convicted and that the trial had dragged on for over five years. He relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that gravity of offence alone cannot be a ground for denial of bail. He further submitted that his absence was due to economic hardship and not malafide intent.
For the Respondent
The State countered that the petitioner had been granted bail twice and had willfully violated its conditions each time. The State cited State of U.P. v. Hari Ram to emphasize that repeated breach of bail conditions reflects a pattern of disrespect for judicial process and raises a strong presumption of likelihood to abscond. The State also highlighted that the accused was involved in another criminal case during his period of unlawful liberty.
The Court's Analysis
The Court declined to engage in a detailed evaluation of evidentiary merits, noting that the issue before it was not the guilt or innocence of the accused but the integrity of the bail system. It observed that the petitioner had been granted bail on two prior occasions and had systematically violated its terms. The Court emphasized that bail is a privilege, not a right, and its grant depends on the accused’s past conduct and reliability.
"The conduct of the applicant clearly shows that he is not trustworthy, has no respect for the process of law, and is likely to abscond again if released on bail."
The Court held that the petitioner’s explanation for absence - labour work without documentation - was vague and insufficient to justify repeated non-appearance. It further noted that the accused had not only defaulted on his bail obligations but had also been implicated in a fresh criminal case during his unlawful liberty. The Court concluded that the principle of judicial trust had been irreparably damaged and that granting bail again would undermine the authority of the court and encourage impunity.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s bail application was denied. The Court held that repeated violation of bail conditions and absence from trial proceedings disqualify an accused from further bail, regardless of the nature of the offence. The Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Is Not a Second Chance
- Practitioners must now treat each bail violation as a cumulative breach that erodes the presumption of trustworthiness.
- Applications for bail after prior cancellation must be supported by verifiable, compelling reasons - not mere assertions of economic hardship.
- Courts may now deny bail even in non-bailable offences if the accused has a documented history of non-compliance.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Absence from court without prior notice or valid excuse will be treated as willful defiance, not inadvertent oversight.
- Documentary evidence of travel, employment, or illness is mandatory to justify non-appearance.
- Courts are empowered to reject bail applications summarily where conduct demonstrates a pattern of disrespect for judicial process.
Trial Speed Is a Counterbalance to Bail Denial
- The Court’s direction to expedite trial signals that prolonged pendency cannot be used as a shield to demand bail.
- Defence counsel should now file applications under Section 309 CrPC to push for trial speed when bail is denied on conduct grounds.
- Prosecution must ensure trial records reflect all instances of non-appearance to strengthen future bail opposition.
