1. Special leave petition challenging the dismissal as withdrawn of a second anticipatory bail petition and subsequent police inaction. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1370
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Parteek Arora @ Parteek Juneja - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 1920 of 2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-09-2024 in CRMM No. 48729/2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh]
Decided on : 22-01-2025
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Divya Gulati, Adv. and Mr. Sachin Saini, AOR
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Divya Gulati, Adv. and Mr. Sachin Saini, AOR
The Court held that attempting to circumvent procedural law to evade arrest after the High Court's refusal of anticipatory bail constitutes an abuse of process, justifying the dismissal of the petition with costs and a direct order for the immediate arrest of the accused.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections relating to anticipatory bail - The High Court dismissed the second anticipatory bail petition as withdrawn when counsel opted to do so after lengthy arguments - The High Court noted police inaction, indicating possible collusion with the accused - The petitioner's subsequent filings were viewed as attempts to circumvent procedural law - The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural adherence and the rejection of bail applications - The dismissal of the special leave petition was ordered, along with costs imposed on the petitioner. (Paras 3, 9, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, seeking anticipatory bail, had previously withdrawn the application after extensive arguments and faced inaction from the police in arresting him despite multiple bail rejections.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found the petitioner's actions as an attempt to avoid arrest and stressed compliance with legal procedures.
Issues: The core issues included the petitioner's attempts to evade arrest after multiple bail applications were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that repeated pursuit of anticipatory bail without surrender indicates an intention to exploit the legal process, warranting dismissal.
Result: Special leave petition dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contended that the High Court dismissed the second anticipatory bail application without providing a proper opportunity to be heard. (Para 7 )
3. The court found the petitioner attempted to circumvent procedural law by withdrawing petitions when bail was unlikely and failing to surrender despite repeated refusals. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. A party cannot use the withdrawal of a petition or procedural delays to circumvent the law or avoid arrest after the refusal of anticipatory bail. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Special leave petition dismissed with costs; directions issued for the immediate arrest of the petitioner and filing of a compliance affidavit. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. Can a petitioner seek relief against an order of dismissal as withdrawn if they voluntarily withdrew the petition after arguments?
No, if the court finds that the petition was argued at length before being withdrawn and the subsequent attempt to challenge it is an effort to circumvent procedural law. (Para 3 , 8 , 9 )
7. What is the court's view on a petitioner failing to surrender after the refusal of anticipatory bail?
Such conduct is viewed as an attempt to take undue advantage of procedural law to avoid custody, which may justify the dismissal of further petitions with costs. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
8. Can the court order the arrest of an accused in a proceeding challenging a bail order?
Yes, the court may direct the police to arrest the petitioner and file a compliance affidavit if it is satisfied that the petitioner is abusing the legal process. (Para 12 )
ORDER :
1. Seeking pre-arrest bail and challenging impugned order dated 30.09.2024 passed in second anticipatory bail petition(CRMM 48729/2024) filed by the petitioner before the High Court, the present special leave petition is filed.
2. We have perused the documents placed before us and heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
3. On perusal, we find that the High Court dismissed CRMM-48729/2024-the second anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner, as withdrawn, after hearing arguments at length, with the following observations:
"After arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the instant petition, at this stage.
Dismissed as withdrawn, at this stage."
4. Thereafter, CRM 41840/2024 was filed in CRMM-48729/2024 after its disposal. On the said application, the High Court took a stringent view and as per order dated 11.12.2024 directed as under:
"The FIR in the present case was registered on 25.06.2023. Thereafter for more than 01 year, no action was taken against the accused. Thereafter, the police started raising the house of the petitioner and apprehending his arrest, he had filed the anticipatory bail petition before this Court. However, this Court was not inclined to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the same was withdrawn on 30.09.2024. Now a period of almost 03 months has elapsed but no steps have been taken by the police either to arrest the accused or to declare him a proclaimed offender. This clearly shows that the officials of the local police have colluded with the accused in the present case.
A status report of the investigation may be filed on or before the next date of hearing by way of personal affidavit of the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar.
The concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amritsar is directed to remain personally present in the Court on the next date of hearing.
List on 19.12.2024.
A copy of this order may be given to learned State counsel under the signatures of Bench Secretary."
5. Thereafter during pendency of CRM-41840/2024 in disposed of CRMM 48729/2024, the present special leave petition was presented/filed on 10.01.2025 challenging the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 in CRMM-48729/2024.
6. On filing of CRM 41840/2024, the case was listed before the High Court; however, on the request of the counsel for the petitioner, it was adjourned to 20.01.2025. Later, on 20.01.2025, the said CRM 41840/2024 was withdrawn and now the petitioner wishes to press this special leave petition which is filed against the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 in CRMM-48729/2024.
7. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner by the High Court on the second application for anticipatory bail.
8. After perusal of the aforesaid material, it is clear that when the second application for anticipatory bail was listed on 30.09.2024, it was argued at length and thereafter, the counsel for the petitioner withdrew the said anticipatory bail petition. Later, they filed CRM 41840/2024 in the said disposed of anticipatory bail petition in which the Court had clarified on 11.12.2024 that when the Court was not inclined to grant concession of anticipatory bail, at that time, the second bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court further went on to observe that the police is sitting tight over the matter and not taking any action to arrest the accused despite rejection of the anticipatory bail, up to the period of three months and a direction was issued to the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, to file an affidavit with regard to the status of investigation, and further direction was issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, to remain personally present on 19.12.2024. In that situation, the present special leave petition has been filed on 10.01.2025. On the same date, i.e., on 10.01.2025, when the case was listed before the High Court, adjournment was sought and final
