Back
"": Punjab & Haryana HC Cracks Down on Litigant Blaming Lawyer for Bail Withdrawal
In a stern rebuke to attempts to game the system, the
dismissed a
by Ankit Rawal in a brutal murder case, imposing Rs 20,000 costs for claiming his previous counsel lacked instructions to withdraw his
plea. Justice Sumeet Goel ruled that such backtracking undermines the "
" of counsel's authority, terming it an
"affront to the adjudicatory process."
A Deadly Clash in Panipat's Grain Market
The roots trace back to the night of , in Bapoli, Panipat. A quarrel escalated into a fatal mob attack on Tasavar and Azad as they rode home on motorcycles. Armed with sticks, knives, and sharp weapons, assailants—allegedly led by Satish and associates including Anil, Vikas, and Manish—ambushed them near Satish's office. Tasavar succumbed to grievous injuries at the government hospital; Azad escaped wounded.
FIR No. 166/2023 invoked Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 302 (murder), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapon), and 149 (unlawful assembly) , with Section 325 (grievous hurt) added later. Police recovered weapons, blood-stained clothes, and CCTV footage from Anaj Mandi gate, leading to arrests and a challan against co-accused. Rawal's name surfaced via a co-accused's disclosure, prompting his petition (CRM-M-4433-2026), withdrawn on , with a promise to seek regular bail below.
Petitioner's Reversal: "My Lawyer Acted Alone"
Rawal sought recall under (ex-), alleging his prior counsel withdrew without authorization—merely to exit if bail was denied, not to appear in trial court within seven days. On merits, he claimed false implication (no FIR mention, only co-accused disclosure of "limited evidentiary value"), no overt acts, no weapon recovery, clean record at 27, hostile witnesses weakening prosecution, and readiness to join probe without tampering. No custodial need remained, he argued.
State's Firm Stand: No Escape from Investigation
State counsel countered the recall as "wholly misconceived," citing the recorded withdrawal statement after arguments. Merits-wise, the grave mob murder demanded to unravel roles, chain of events, and verify recoveries amid ongoing probe. Granting bail risked obstruction, especially with CCTV and forensics pending.
Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: Counsel Speaks for Client
Justice Goel first rejected maintainability under (ex-362 ), barring review of final orders. Even on merits, the murder's gravity—collective assault with deadly weapons—tilted against bail. False implication was a trial issue; investigation nascent, needing custody per State v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187, where the Supreme Court stressed pre-arrest bail insulates suspects, reducing interrogation to "ritual."
But the coup de grâce targeted Rawal's counsel-disowning ploy. The court invoked the advocate-client covenant via
, presuming statements bind clients to prevent endless reopenings. Allowing "lack of instructions" claims would stall justice, letting litigants get a
"
."
“The judicial process operates on the that statements made by a counsel at the Bar are made with full authority and reflect the true intent of the litigant concerned. This principle ensures that the Court can effectively adjudicate without being compelled to verify the internal communications between a lawyer and the client at every stage of proceedings.”
As media reports echoed, Justice Goel branded it
"
striking at the very root of the advocate-client relationship"
, an attempt to turn courts into "experimental litigation laboratories." Counsel, as court officers, act prudently—here, withdrawing to avoid a merits rejection prejudicial to future pleas.
Key Observations from the Bench
-
On Recall Limits :
"The mere assertion of the petitioner in this regard cannot be accepted to recall a judicial order passed by this Court. Even otherwise, the scope of recalling such an order is extremely limited."
-
Custody's Necessity : Echoing Anil Sharma ,
" is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented... Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected."
-
Litigant Accountability :
"A litigant who misuses the process of law or take liberties with the truth should be left in no doubt about the consequences... ... are inevitable."
No Mercy: Dismissal with Costs, Probe Unaffected
The applications (CRM-8361-2026, CRM-9472-2026) stand dismissed. Rawal must deposit Rs 20,000 with within four weeks for , recoverable as land revenue if not. Liberty granted earlier persists; trial and probe proceed untrammeled.
This ruling fortifies counsel's courtroom authority, deterring "vexatious" tactics in bail pleas amid serious crimes. Future litigants beware: your lawyer's word is your bond, or face the costs.
