Anticipatory bail and parity fail where prolonged absconding and a materially distinct role make discretionary relief unsustainable.

Anticipatory bail may be interfered with where the accused has evaded arrest for a substantial period, joined investigation only after interim protection, and the record does not justify discretionary relief. The Court held that prolonged absconding, the seriousness of the allegations, and the material on record made the grant of anticipatory bail unsustainable, so the order was set aside and the accused was directed to surrender, while leaving open the right to seek regular bail in accordance with law. Parity with a co-accused was also rejected because the applicant's role and conduct were materially distinct, and common family allegations did not by themselves warrant equal relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether anticipatory bail granted to the accused was liable to be set aside in view of her prolonged absconding, the seriousness of the allegations, and the material on record. (ii) Whether parity with a co-accused justified grant of anticipatory bail.

Issue (i): Whether anticipatory bail granted to the accused was liable to be set aside in view of her prolonged absconding, the seriousness of the allegations, and the material on record.

Analysis: Cancellation or interference with bail stands on a different footing from the initial grant of bail, and requires a careful assessment of the record, the gravity of the accusation, the conduct of the accused, and the possibility of interference with investigation or trial. Where the accused remains absconding for a long period after being declared a proclaimed offender, joins investigation only after obtaining interim protection, and the record does not show a false or exaggerated implication, grant of anticipatory bail becomes legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The anticipatory bail was wrongly granted and was liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether parity with a co-accused justified grant of anticipatory bail.

Analysis: Parity is unavailable where the role attributed to the accused is materially different from that of the co-accused and where the accused's own conduct, including prolonged evasion of arrest, places her on a distinct footing. Common allegations against family members do not by themselves establish equal entitlement to discretionary relief when specific allegations indicate a key role against the applicant. On the facts, the accused could not claim parity with the co-accused who had been granted bail.

Conclusion: The plea of parity was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court granting anticipatory bail and treating the accused's status differently was set aside, and the accused was directed to surrender, leaving open her right to seek regular bail in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail can be interfered with where the accused has evaded arrest for a substantial period and the record does not justify discretionary protection, and parity cannot be claimed when the accused's role and conduct are materially distinct from those of the co-accused.

---