Abuse of the process of the Court by filing subsequent/successive anticipatory bail applications without justification.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - This is the second petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.134 dated 08.03.2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat.

2. At the outset, it would be relevant to note that after the dismissal of anticipatory bail application by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide order dated 06.01.2022 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner had approached this Court for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail by filing CRM-M-2416-2022, in which, the following order was passed: -

"Present: Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana.

(Through Video Conferencing)

****

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 134 dated 08.03.2021 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat.

After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present petition and states that the petitioner is ready to surrender before the police within a period of 10 days from today.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further made a prayer that in case, the petitioner surrenders before the police within a period of 10 days from today and files an application for grant of regular bail after surrender, the same be decided as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of five days from the date of filing of the said application.

In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

In case, after surrendering before the police within a period of 10 days from today, the petitioner files an application for grant of regular bail, the trial Court is requested to decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of five days from the date of filing of the said application.

21.01.2022 (VIKAS BAHL)

Pawan JUDGE"

3. Perusal of the above order would show that when the first anticipatory bail petition came up for hearing before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, had sought permission to withdraw the said petition and had also made a statement that the petitioner was ready to surrender before the police within a period of 10 days from the date of the passing of the order dated 21.01.2022.

4. Since this Court, after hearing the abovesaid first anticipatory bail petition, was not inclined to grant the same, thus, learned counsel for the petitioner had made the above-said prayer to get his bail petition decided expeditiously after his surrender before the police within the said period of 10 days. Instead of complying with the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing of order dated 21.01.2022, to surrender before the police within a period of 10 days, the petitioner has chosen to file the present second anticipatory petition, which has been drafted on 28.02.2022, after the lapse of the said period of 10 days and has came up for hearing today.

5. Perusal of the entire petition would show that no reason has been given to justify the non-compliance of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner at the time of passing of the order dated 21.01.2022. On 21.01.2022, when the first petition for anticipatory bail was withdrawn, the petitioner had an apprehension of arrest. The petitioners anticipatory bail had already been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide order dated 06.01.2022 (P-2) and thus, the withdrawal of the first anticipatory bail application was apparently to avoid a detailed adverse order. This Court is of the opinion that the filing of the present second anticipatory bail petition filed by the different counsel is not only non-maintainable, but