‘Halls of justice not lab’: Woman denied pre-arrest bail for visa fraud in Punjab and Haryana High Court for second time

Justice Sumeet Goel stated that the process of justice is meant to treat every individual in a manner which is equitable and fair.

“Such a practice constitutes a classic case of forum shopping, where the litigant treats the halls of justice as a laboratory for speculative litigation,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court said on May 15.

The order added that a litigant who approached the same court for the same relief, absent any material charge in circumstances, engages in a strategem of attrition that is less a pursuit of justice and more an exercise of testing the waters.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court also imposed exemplary costs of Rs 20,000 on the petitioner for abusing the judicial process and evading the law.

‘Deliberately evaded process of law’

• The allegations levelled in the First Information Report (FIR) are serious in nature, and prima facie disclose a deliberate act of cheating committed in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, the Punjab and Haryana High Court noted.
• The first petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court on April 23.
• It is well settled that a second anticipatory bail petition seeking relief is not maintainable unless there is a substantial charge in circumstances after the disposal or withdrawal as per the jurisprudence on bail.
• The grounds urged in the present petition appear to be the same as those which were available to the petitioner at the time when the earlier petition was withdrawn.

• In the absence of any fact, development or change in circumstances, entertaining successive petitions would amount to permitting repeated attempts for the same relief, which cannot be countenanced in law, the Punjab and Haryana High Court stated.
• Therefore, notwithstanding the submission regarding the limited role attributed to the petitioner, this court finds that the present petition suffers from the vice of maintainability, as no charge in circumstances has been demonstrated after the withdrawal of the earlier anticipatory bail petition.
• The first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on April 23, and the instant petition has been preferred after a gap of approximately 21 days.
• The petitioner has deliberately evaded the process of law for the said period, particularly when she made a statement before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at the time of withdrawal of her first petition that she would cause an appearance before the concerned court within seven working days and prefer an appropriate application seeking bail.

‘Procedural adventurism’

• The process of justice is meant to treat every individual in a manner which is equitable and fair, the Punjab and Haryana High Court stated.
• However, if the petitioner-accused chooses to employ irregular and convoluted tactics, including undue delay, strategically aimed at frustrating lawful proceedings, it is tantamount to an abuse of the process of justice.
• While the liberty and dignity of an individual must be held high, no one can be permitted to subvert the cause of devolution in the process of justice.
• Protracted absence, eluding the process of law and abrupt repetition of pleas for the pre-arrest bail, in the absence of convincing reasons, is certainly not an act/behaviour which calls for sympathy/indulgence of the court.
• The sanctity of the judicial process is predicated upon the principle of finality of judicial orders, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held.
• While there is no express statutory embargo against the filing of successive applications for anticipatory bail, such a right is not an absolute charter for “procedural adventurism”.

Background

The petitioner was seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with the case registered under Sections 420 (cheating) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). According to the persecution, the complainant was induced by the petitioner and her co-accused to pay Rs 15,50,000 on the promise of securing Canadian visas and settlement for his children.

It was alleged that the accused persons represented themselves to be capable of arranging visas and admission abroad and assured the complainant that his two children would be settled in Canada. Acting upon such assurance, the complainant allegedly paid various amounts in cash on different dates from October 2020.

It was further alleged that the accused provided forged medical reports and failed to either send the children abroad or return the money.

This was the petitioner’s second attempt at seeking anticipatory bail. Her first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on April 23, after her counsel stated that she would surrender before the trial court within seven working days to seek regular bail. Instead of appearing, the petitioner remained at large for 21 days before filing the instant second petition.