Filing Successive Anticipatory Bail Applications Without Substantive Change In Circumstances Is 'Abuse Of Process': P&H High Court Imposes 50K Cost
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that filing of successive applications for anticipatory bail by a person apprehending arrest, without substantial change in circumstances, amounts to an abuse of process of Court.Dismissing one such application, Justice Vikas Bahl imposed Rs.50,000/- cost, payable to District Legal Services Authority within a month.The Petitioner in this case...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that filing of successive applications for anticipatory bail by a person apprehending arrest, without substantial change in circumstances, amounts to an abuse of process of Court.
Dismissing one such application, Justice Vikas Bahl imposed Rs.50,000/- cost, payable to District Legal Services Authority within a month.
The Petitioner in this case is accused of forging documents to get the benefit of revised pay scale. His plea for anticipatory bail was previously rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. Subsequently, a second anticipatory bail application was filed, which came to be withdrawn when the Court expressed its disinclination to grant relief. The present plea was filed one month thereafter.
"No subsequent event or change in circumstance, much less, substantial change in circumstance has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner or averred in the present petition," the Court observed at the outset.
Reference was made to G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., where the Supreme Court held that specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order.
While considering the case on merits, the court observed that the petitioner has taken the benefit of a revised pay scale from the department by submitting forged document and prima facie has committed the offences mentioned in the FIR. Therefore, he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
The petitioner thus, by submitting forged documents had received benefits of a revised pay scale from the department and prima facie has committed the offences mentioned in the FIR and does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
Moreover, the court held that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovering the original mark sheets and to ascertain involvement of other persons in the commission of the instant offence. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed even on merits.
Accordingly, the second petition was dismissed with costs.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Versus State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 144