2022 (3) TMI 1596 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - no reason given to justify the non-compliance of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner at the time of passing of the order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that there is a stark difference between filing of subsequent/successive regular bail applications or 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where a person is already in custody, any subsequent regular bail application filed, even after the first has been withdrawn, would normally be considered, since, the factum of further custody would normally be a changed circumstance. It is always open for an accused who is in custody to show that his further incarceration for some months/years is a changed circumstance, entitling him to regular bail. To exemplify, in case, a person is accused of an offence for which the maximum sentence is 10 years and his first bail application, which was filed after undergoing two years of custody, has been rejected, it would be open for that person to come after a year or after a substantial period of further custody has been undergone by him and the Courts could well grant the concession of bail to the accused on the ground of period of custody undergone . 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. Thus, even on merits, the present second petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected. The first anticipatory bail petition of the present petitioner came up for hearing on 21.01.2022 and on the said date, the said interim order dated 20.12.2021 had already been passed in favour of the co-accused Roshan Lal and the same was in the knowledge of the counsel for the petitioner, appearing in the first anticipatory bail petition filed by the present petitioner, as he was the same counsel who had also filed the petition on behalf of co-accused Roshan Lal and it was after considering all the said facts, that counsel for the petitioner, after seeing that this Court was not inclined to grant relief in the matter at hand, sought permission to withdraw the said petition and made a statement that the petitioner was ready to surrender before the police within a period of 10 days. The petitioner has back tracked from the said undertaking/statement and has chosen to file present second petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., which is complete abuse of the process of the Court. The present second petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-.

Summary

Issues:
1. Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Non-compliance with the undertaking to surrender before the police within a specified period.
3. Maintainability of subsequent/successive anticipatory bail applications.
4. Merits of the case regarding the main accused's involvement in alleged offenses.
5. Abuse of the legal process by filing successive anticipatory bail petitions.

The judgment by the High Court addressed the second petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner had initially sought anticipatory bail, but after withdrawal of the first petition and an undertaking to surrender within 10 days, a subsequent petition was filed beyond the agreed period. The Court noted the non-compliance with the previous statement and deemed the second petition as nonmaintainable and misconceived, warranting dismissal with costs.

Regarding the maintainability of successive anticipatory bail applications, the Court distinguished them from regular bail applications, emphasizing that the former cannot be treated similarly. While subsequent regular bail applications may consider changed circumstances like prolonged custody, anticipatory bail petitions lack such flexibility. The petitioner failed to provide any legal precedent supporting the maintainability of the second anticipatory bail petition, especially after not adhering to the prior commitment to surrender.

On the merits of the case, the Court analyzed the FIR's contents, implicating the petitioner as the main accused in a scheme involving coercion, threats, and fabrication of documents to extort money. Given the gravity of the allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation to establish the sequence of events, the Court deemed the petitioner ineligible for anticipatory bail, further justifying the rejection of the second petition.

Additionally, the judgment highlighted an abuse of the legal process, where litigants attempt to evade adverse orders by withdrawing petitions and subsequently filing new ones without valid reasons. The Court condemned this practice, imposing costs on the petitioner and directing them to deposit the amount with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority within a specified timeframe to deter such misuse of the judicial system.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment covers all the issues involved, providing a detailed overview of the Court's reasoning and decision-making process.