The Punjab and Haryana High Court has decided to levy a fine of 1 Lakh rupees on the advocate representing a murder accused during their second anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). This penalty was imposed due to the lawyer's concealment of essential facts.

In this particular case, both the lawyer and the accused-petitioner failed to disclose a previous High Court order dated August 17, 2022. In that order, the accused-petitioner had given an undertaking to surrender before the Trial Court within a week. The High Court had directed that no coercive action should be taken against him if he  surrendered and applied for bail, and his bail application would be promptly considered by the Trial Court. However, the petitioner only mentioned the withdrawal of their previous bail application due to the pendency of a criminal revision and the stay on proceedings before the Trial Court. They argued that their second petition was justified based on this ground alone.

In response to this situation, Justice Sandeep Moudgil's bench held that the second anticipatory bail application could not be entertained. The petition not only should be dismissed, but also, to discourage abuse of the legal process, a substantial cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on the petitioner's counsel. This amount is required to be deposited in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Lawyers' Welfare Fund. The court aimed to send a strong message that such actions that undermine the court's integrity and procedures would not be tolerated.

The accused in this case faced allegations under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 148, 149, 323, 302, 324, and 506. The Court took note of the fact that the petitioner had made a blatant attempt to deceive the Court by withholding information about an order issued on August 17, 2022, which the accused had failed to comply with. This order required the accused to surrender within one week. However, in court, the accused incorrectly claimed that the proceedings before the trial Court were stayed only on October 28, 2022, after being summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The bench pointed out that there was a significant period of over 2 ½ months during which the petitioner had the opportunity to surrender and adhere to the trial Court's directives. Had the petitioner surrendered during this time, it is likely that they could have applied for regular bail, and the High Court might have been inclined to instruct the trial Court to promptly address the regular bail application, ideally within a span of three days.

Nevertheless, the petitioner made another attempt to avoid the legal process and later withdrew the anticipatory bail application. At that time, the Court had shown leniency in accepting the excuse provided by the petitioner, which the Court referred to as 'lame.' The excuse cited was a miscommunication that supposedly prevented the compliance with the August order.

In light of these circumstances, the bench observed that the petitioner had concealed the crucial fact about the August 17, 2022 order. The petition neither contained any mention of this fact in the pleadings nor attached a copy of the said order to the petition. This omission left no doubt in the Court's mind that the present petition was a deliberate, malicious, and contemptuous act on the part of the litigant. The litigant, who was already facing a criminal trial, exhibited a dishonest and fraudulent demeanor by not disclosing the true and accurate facts. The Court emphasized that the law is meant to protect those who approach it with honesty and reveal their true intentions and antecedents.

Case: Gulab Singh v. State Of Haryana And Another, CRM-M-52639-2023.