9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Abuse of process of law by the Petitioners. 2. Repeated anticipatory bail applications. 3. Misleading the court and forum shopping. 4. Merits of the allegations against the Petitioners. 5. Imposition of costs for frivolous petitions. Summary: Abuse of Process of Law: 1. This is the 7th application rather seventh attempt by the Petitioners to obtain the anticipatory bail. 2. At the outset it must be stated that the Petitioners have indulged in the gross abuse of the processes of law and therefore, deserve to be dealt with heavily for misusing the processes of law of the Court. Repeated Anticipatory Bail Applications:5. The Petitioners apprehending their arrest, filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions which was disposed of on 01.11.2010 by an elaborate order running into almost five pages, where it was observed that the collaboration agreement dated 30.6.2008 which was entered into by the Petitioners was silent about the pendency of the civil suit between the Petitioner's company and M/s Techsoft Global Ltd., in which the Petitioners were restrained from creating any third party interest. Yet they had entered into collaboration agreement with the complainant and induced them to pay a total sum of Rs. 3.26 crores. Consequently, the application for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected. 6. (a) The Petitioners feeling dissatisfied, filed second application for grant of anticipatory bail in the High Court bearing Bail Application No. 1762/2010 which came up for hearing on 12.11.2010. On the said date the matter was adjourned on the request of the counsel for the Petitioners for obtaining instructions from his client and the matter was renotified for 15-11-2010. Although, the notice was issued to file the status report. On 15-11-2010 the counsel for the Petitioners sought adjournment on the ground that the Petitioners are willing to arrive at a negotiated settlement with the complainant. The complainant was present in the Court along with his counsel and the matter was adjourned to 24-11-2010. 7. Thereafter, the Petitioners made a 3rd attempt for grant of anticipatory bail by filing bail application bearing No. 1964/2010 which was dismissed as withdrawn while reserving the right to seek their remedies in accordance with law. Since, copy of the said application is not placed on record it is not clear as to whether the factum of the rejection of the earlier two bail applications was mentioned there or not. 8. (a) Thereafter, the Petitioners filed an application bearing Crl.M.A. No. 325/2011 in bail application No. 1762/2010 which had already been dismissed on merits for revival of the bail application (IInd application) on the ground that the said bail application was not dismissed on merit as the counsel on 16-12-2010 had stated that he had No. instructions. Though notice on the said application was issued by this Court but perusal of the order dated 16-12-2010 does not show that the said order was not passed on merit. 9. (a). It may be pertinent here to observe that the Petitioners instead of approaching the trial court made a fresh attempt by filing an application for grant of anticipatory bail u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure before the court of Sessions and it was mentioned in the said application that this is a first application for grant of anticipatory bail though after some submissions it was stated that due to the inadvertence, the application has been shown as the first application for grant of anticipatory bail though four attempts had already been made by the Petitioners before the Court of Sessions and the High Court. 10. After withdrawal of the so called misleading first bail application another anticipatory bail application was filed on 16.06.2011 and after arguments, the said petition was permitted to be withdrawn. 11. Still not feeling satisfied the Petitioners filed yet another anticipatory bail application before the Court of Sessions which was dismissed on 28.7.2011 by Ms. Sarita Birbal, learned Additional Sessions Judge by a long speaking order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also taken note of the repeated bail application having been filed by the Petitioners apart from the fact that they are not keeping their assurances given to the Court to make the payment. 12. (a)The Petitioners have now chosen to file the present petition before the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail which is the
|
