Unscrupulous Litigants Withdraw Anticipatory Bail Plea To Avoid Dismissal & File Successive Pleas, Waste Judicial Time: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently deprecated the practice of filing successive bail applications, without any adequate ground/ change in circumstances.It also voiced concern over the unfortunate trend being adopted by "unscrupulous litigants" in which anticipatory bail is argued and when the Court is about to dismiss the petition, in order to avoid a detailed adverse order, the...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently deprecated the practice of filing successive bail applications, without any adequate ground/ change in circumstances.
It also voiced concern over the unfortunate trend being adopted by "unscrupulous litigants" in which anticipatory bail is argued and when the Court is about to dismiss the petition, in order to avoid a detailed adverse order, the counsel seeks to withdraw the petition and after some days, without any justification, files a second anticipatory bail petition.
"The same not only wastes the time of the Court, but is also an abuse of the process of the Court and the said practice needs to be curtailed with a heavy hand," Justice Vikas Bahl said.
The remarks were made while dealing with second petition for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case of forging document to falsely implicate the complainant by registering a false FIR.
It observed that the second anticipatory bail petition was not only non-maintainable, but also misconceived and thus, deserves to be dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000.
The bench further added that even on merits, the present second petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected.
The court observed that when the first anticipatory bail petition came up for hearing, the counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw assuring that the petitioner will surrender within 10 days but instead of complying with the same, the petitioner chose to file the present second anticipatory petition after the lapse of the said period of 10 days.
Keeping in view the above observation, court held that the withdrawal of the first anticipatory bail application was apparently to avoid a detailed adverse order and filing of the present second anticipatory bail petition is abuse of process of law.
The court further observed that there is a stark difference between filing of subsequent/successive regular bail applications for suspension of sentence and filing of subsequent/successive anticipatory bail applications.
In the case of regular bail applications, where a person is already in custody, any subsequent regular bail application filed, even after the first has been withdrawn, would normally be considered, since, the factum of "further custody" would normally be a changed circumstance. Similar would be the position in the case of suspension of sentence. However, the case of anticipatory bail cannot be treated to be on the same pedestal.
This Court has also considered the case on merits and it becomes apparent that the petitioner being the main accused, who pressurized and harassed the complainant after preparing a forged affidavit, does not deserve the grant of concession of anticipatory bail. Court further added that his custodial interrogation is necessary to complete the chain of events comprising the commission of the alleged offences.
Further the perusal of the FIR, as well as keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, it becomes apparent that the petitioner is the main accused, who had initially pressurized and harassed the complainant and after the preparation of the forged affidavit, had submitted the same to the police and thus, does not deserve the grant of concession of anticipatory bail and hence, his custodial interrogation is necessary in order to complete the chain of events comprising the commission of the alleged offences.
Accordingly, the second petition was dismissed with costs.
Case Title : Bhunesh v State of Haryana
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 151