Successive Anticipatory Bail Plea Filed Without Any Substantive Change In Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Cost
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a successive plea seeking anticipatory bail as there was no substantive change in circumstances.
The Single Bench of Justice Vikas Bahl termed the filing of a second anticipatory bail application without any substantive change in circumstance as an abuse of the process of the Court and imposed costs to the tune of 50,000 rupees on the petitioner.
As per the FIR, the petitioner was a government servant working as a Work Supervisor and had submitted vague and forged documents in the department with respect to his secondary school examination mark sheet, in order to get the benefit of a revised pay scale.
A complaint was made regarding the said fake mark sheet supplied by the petitioner and the secondary school examination mark sheet was sent to the Deputy Director, Regional Director, Regional Centre, Delhi. After due verification, it became clear that the petitioner had submitted forged/fake mark sheets in the department vide his application and accordingly, FIR was registered.
Advocate Akshat Sharma appeared for the petitioner whereas AAG, Praveen Bhadu appeared for the respondent state.
"The petitioner thus, by submitting forged documents had received benefits of a revised pay scale from the department and prima facie has committed the offences mentioned in the FIR and does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail", the court held.
The Court noted that the petitioner had filed a bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram which came to be dismissed. Thereafter petition for grant of anticipatory bail was made before the High Court but it was withdrawn by the counsel of the petitioner.
The Court noted that "the matter was argued and when this Court opined that it was not inclined to interfere in the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner, who had filed the first anticipatory bail, in order to avoid a detailed adverse order on merits, sought permission of this Court to withdraw the said petition."
The Court further observed that after a month from passing of this order, the present petition was filed. The Court noted that there was no substantive change in the circumstance.
"Since the filing of a second anticipatory bail application, in the facts & circumstances detailed herein above, is an abuse of the process of the Court, thus, the present petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/", the Court held.