The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently expressed dismay over a trend where litigants give hollow undertakings to the Court to secure discretionary relief such as anticipatory bail, only to later go back on their promises once they have secured their liberty [Surinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr].

Justice Sumeet Goel added that such tendencies must be discouraged as it involves a flagrant manipulation of the court's leniency.

"This Court takes judicial notice of a burgeoning and distressing trend wherein accused-petitioners utilize the prospect of an amicable settlement as a strategic artifice to procure discretionary relief, only to subsequently repudiate their commitments once liberty is secured ... This maneouver of securing freedom through the pretense of restitution, is a flagrant manipulation of the Court’s leniency. It is a stratagem that must be met with stern condemnation and shall have no sanctuary within the equitable jurisdiction of this Court. This court finds it imperative to discourage this growing propensity for litigation opportunism where the sanctuary of a judicial undertaking is traded for temporal procedural gain," the February 3 order stated.

The Court made the observation while cancelling the anticipatory bail earlier granted to the director of an investment company in a cheating case connected to a housing project in Ludhiana.

The Court found that pre-arrest relief had been secured by the accused on the basis of a mediated settlement, which was later not complied with by him.

The Court, therefore, not only cancelled the earlier order giving him relief but also imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the accused. It further ordered him to surrender before the trial court within 15 days.

Commenting on the seriousness of the matter, the Court said,

“To permit an accused-petitioner to resile from a Court-sanctioned compromise, with impunity, would be to render this Court’s orders toothless and the administration of justice illusory. To view this breach as a simple civil dispute would be to allow the judicial machinery to be weaponized for private gain ... Such 'shopping for liberty' through hollow undertakings undermines the majesty of the law and brings the administration of justice into disrepute."

The case stemmed from allegations that a homebuyer was persuaded to purchase a flat in a housing project near Ludhiana, for which over ₹37 lakh was paid through cash and bank transfers.

Under the agreement, the builder was to hand over possession within eight months. However, the flat was never delivered despite repeated follow-ups, and the money was not refunded when asked, leading to criminal proceedings for cheating.

The accused director of the company that put together the housing project eventually moved the High Court seeking pre-arrest bail.

The High Court sent the parties to mediation, where they reached a written settlement. The builder promised to give the homebuyer an alternative furnished flat and to register the sale deed by December 2022.

Relying entirely on this settlement, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused director in January 2022.

However, the homebuyer later approached the Court again, saying that none of the promises were honoured by the accused.

The Court allowed the homebuyer's plea to set aside the earlier anticipatory bail order. It proceeded to decide on the director's anticipatory bail on merits, and concluded that he was not entitled to such relief given the seriousness of the allegations against him.

It further ordered the accused director to pay ₹25,000 as costs to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority for failing to honour the earlier settlement.

“Vexatious and virulent attempt(s) by unscrupulous elements, aimed at misusing the process of law and Courts, ought to be detested. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempt(s) is not responded with firmness... Exemplary costs, in such a situation are inevitable and necessary," the Court reasoned.

The complainant was represented by advocates AP Kaushal and Pallavi Bahre.

The State was represented by Additional Advocate General Baljinder Singh Sra.

The accused was represented by advocates Yogesh Goel, Jashanpreet Singh and Izairra Mittal.

[Read Order]