Punjab and Haryana High Court flagged misuse of court leniency, noting how litigants give false undertakings to secure anticipatory bail. Justice Sumeet Goel warned that such conduct undermines judicial integrity and amounts to manipulating discretionary relief for personal freedom.
PUNJAB: The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently expressed concern over a troubling trend in which litigants make insincere undertakings to the Court to obtain discretionary relief, such as anticipatory bail, only to later disregard their promises once they have secured their freedom.
Justice Sumeet Goel emphasized the need to discourage this behavior, framing it as a serious manipulation of the court’s leniency.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: Don’t Grant Anticipatory Bail Mechanically in Serious Offences
The order stated,
“This Court takes judicial notice of a burgeoning and distressing trend wherein accused-petitioners utilize the prospect of an amicable settlement as a strategic artifice to procure discretionary relief, only to subsequently repudiate their commitments once liberty is secured … This maneuver of securing freedom through the pretense of restitution is a flagrant manipulation of the Court’s leniency. It is a stratagem that must be met with stern condemnation and shall have no sanctuary within the equitable jurisdiction of this Court. This court finds it imperative to discourage this growing propensity for litigation opportunism where the sanctuary of a judicial undertaking is traded for temporal procedural gain,”
The Court made this observation while revoking the anticipatory bail previously granted to the director of an investment company involved in a cheating case related to a housing project in Ludhiana. The Court found that the accused had obtained pre-arrest relief based on a mediated settlement, which he later failed to honor.
Consequently, the Court not only revoked the earlier relief order but also imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the accused, directing him to surrender before the trial court within 15 days.
ALSO READ: ANALYSIS| Supreme Court: ‘Anticipatory Bail Not Meant for Absconding Accused’
Regarding the seriousness of the issue, the Court remarked,
“To permit an accused-petitioner to resile from a Court-sanctioned compromise, with impunity, would be to render this Court’s orders toothless and the administration of justice illusory. To view this breach as a simple civil dispute would be to allow the judicial machinery to be weaponized for private gain … Such ‘shopping for liberty’ through hollow undertakings undermines the majesty of the law and brings the administration of justice into disrepute.”
The case originated from allegations that a homebuyer was convinced to purchase a flat in a housing project near Ludhiana, for which over Rs 37 lakh was paid through cash and bank transfers. According to the agreement, the builder was supposed to deliver possession within eight months. However, the flat was never handed over, despite repeated follow-ups, and there was no refund when requested, leading to criminal proceedings for cheating.
The director of the company responsible for the housing project later approached the High Court for pre-arrest bail. The High Court referred the matter to mediation, resulting in a written settlement in which the builder agreed to provide the homebuyer with an alternative furnished flat and to register the sale deed by December 2022.
Relying solely on this settlement, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused director in January 2022. However, the homebuyer returned to the Court, stating that the promises were not fulfilled.
ALSO READ: Bribery Case || Bombay HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail To Satara Judge Dhananjay Nikam
The Court allowed the homebuyer’s request to overturn the initial anticipatory bail order and evaluated the director’s case on its merits, concluding that he was not entitled to relief given the seriousness of the allegations.
It further ordered the accused director to pay Rs 25,000 in costs to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority for failing to comply with the previous settlement.
The Court reasoned,
“Vexatious and virulent attempt(s) by unscrupulous elements, aimed at misusing the process of law and Courts, ought to be detested. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempt(s) is not responded with firmness… Exemplary costs, in such a situation, are inevitable and necessary,”
The complainant was represented by advocates AP Kaushal and Pallavi Bahre, while the State was represented by Additional Advocate General Baljinder Singh Sra. The accused was represented by advocates Yogesh Goel, Jashanpreet Singh, and Izairra Mittal.
CASE TITLE: Surinder Pal Singh v State of Punjab and another