P&H HC: Unethical Litigants File & Withdraw Pleas, Wasting Precious Time of Judiciary

Punjab & Haryana HC Habaes Corpus - law insider

Debangana Ray

Published on June 15, 2022 at 20:13 IST

The Punjab and Haryana HC expressed disapproval regarding a practice of filing successive bail pleas without any change in circumstances.

It voiced concerned over the trend followed by some litigants where the time when the anticipatory bail is argued and the court is about to dismiss the plea, the counsel seeks to withdraw the petition in order to avoid an adverse order. A second petition, is then filed after a few days without any significant change in circumstances.

Justice Vikas Bahl said that the above practice, “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.”

The court made those statements while discussing a case where the petitioner forged documents in order to implicate the complainant by filing a false FIR. The court dismissed the second anticipatory bail application with costs of Rs. 50000.

The court stated that even on merit, the second application deserves to be rejected. This is because, previously while withdrawing the first bail application, the counsel for the petitioner assured that the petitioner will surrender within 10 days.

However, they later filed for a second bail application after the 10-day lapse. Hence, the court contended that the first application was withdrawn in order to avoid an adverse order and abuse the process of law.

The court further differentiated between successive anticipatory bail and successive regular bail petitions.

“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where a person is already in custody, any subsequent regular bail application filed, even after the first has been withdrawn, would normally be considered, since, the factum of “further custody” would normally be a changed circumstance.”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.”

The court further stated “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.”

“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.”

Hence, the second application was dismissed.

Related Post