Anticipatory bail denied where the accused was absconding, non-cooperative, and a charge-sheet had already been filed.

Anticipatory bail was held unwarranted where a prima facie case existed, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the accused was evading process without cooperating with the investigation. The Court treated pre-arrest bail as a discretionary relief not meant to assist an accused who remained absconding despite coercive steps such as non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings. On that footing, the request for interference was rejected and the refusal of anticipatory bail was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to an accused against whom serious penal offences were alleged, charge-sheet had been filed, and who was found to be absconding and subject to coercive process.

Analysis: The allegations included offences under the Indian Penal Code involving violence and attempt-related charges. The investigation had already culminated in filing of the charge-sheet. The record also showed that the accused had not surrendered despite earlier protective directions, and non-bailable warrant as well as proclamation proceedings had been initiated. In these circumstances, the accused was not cooperating with the investigating process and a prima facie case was found against him. Anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief and is not meant to assist an accused who is absconding and evading process.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was not warranted and the request for interference was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The accused was denied pre-arrest bail, and the challenge to the High Court's refusal of anticipatory bail failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail should not be granted where a prima facie case exists, the charge-sheet has been filed, and the accused is evading process and not cooperating with investigation.

---