While dismissing an application seeking recall of an earlier with costs of Rs 20,000, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the averment that the previous counsel was ‘not properly instructed’, stands in the face of the integrity of the legal profession and the applicant having put his signature on the Vaqalatnama, cannot be permitted to act as a stranger to the actions taken by his earlier counsel.

The High Court was considering an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking recall of an earlier order of the High Court whereby the petition filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 341, 323, 302, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to appear before the Court below within seven days and to seek the concession of regular bail.

The Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel held, “The averment that the previous counsel was ‘not properly instructed’, stands in the face of the integrity of the legal profession. The applicant-petitioner having put his signature on the Vaqalatnama, cannot be permitted to act as a stranger to the actions taken by his earlier counsel in open court, especially when such action was intended to mitigate a legal damage. To accept this plea would virtually allow the applicant-petitioner to abuse the process of law by turning this Court into a laboratory for experimental litigation. It is necessary to detest such vexatious and virulent attempt(s) by unscrupulous elements, aimed at misusing the process of law and Courts. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempt(s) is not responded with necessary firmness.”

“Others should be discouraged not to venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency or indulgence. Exemplary costs, in such a situation are inevitable and necessary, so as to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is rather practiced in our Country, there is no premium on the truth. Such misleading plea(s) which are deficient in any reasonability, have to be construed as trifling with the Courts and the process of justice”, it added.

Advocate Gaurav Grover represented the applicant-petitioner, while Advocate Mahima Yashpal Singla represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

An FIR was lodged by the complainant alleging that a quarrel had taken place between the deceased and certain persons of the village, including Anil, Vikas and Manish. It was alleged that thereafter Satish, along with several associates, intercepted Tasavar and Azad while they were returning home on their motorcycles and attacked them with sticks, knives and other sharp-edged weapons in front of the office of Satish near the grain market. As a result of the assault, Tasavar sustained grievous injuries and was taken to the Government Hospital, where he was declared dead, whereas the injured, Azad, managed to escape after sustaining the injuries. On the basis of the complaint, the FIR came to be registered.

The weapons of offence, including a knife as well as blood-stained clothes, were recovered. It was alleged that the further investigation had revealed the involvement of multiple accused persons (including the petitioner) in the assault, which ultimately resulted in the death of Tasavar. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was presented against the co-accused persons.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the earlier order dated January 28, 2026, passed by the Court clearly reflected that after arguing for some time, the petitioner had sought permission to withdraw the petition and had also submitted that the petitioner would cause his appearance before the concerned trial Court within 7 days and would seek regular bail. The ground taken in the present application that the petitioner had not authorised his earlier counsel to make such a statement, which was recorded in the earlier order, did not inspire the Court and appeared to be an attempt to circumvent the consequences of the said order.

“No material has been placed on record to substantiate the allegation that the statement was made without instructions. 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. The application in question filed for recalling of earlier order passed by this Court is not maintainable, inter alia, in view of Section 403 of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 362 of Cr.P.C.) and deserves dismissal on this score alone”, it held.

The Bench noted that the allegations in the FIR reflected that the deceased Tasavar and another injured person, Azad, were allegedly attacked by a group of assailants armed with sticks, knives and other sharp weapons near the office of one of the accused persons. It was further noticed that the deceased sustained multiple injuries and was declared dead upon being taken to the hospital.

“The offence alleged in the present case is punishable under Section 302 IPC. The gravity of the offence, the manner in which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place and the collective participation of several accused persons are factors which cannot be ignored while considering the plea for grant of anticipatory bail. It is well-settled that the seriousness of the offence is to be assessed on the basis of the allegations and surrounding circumstances and the act done with intention or knowledge to cause death is sufficient. It is settled law that while considering the grant of anticipatory bail, the Court must strike a balance between the right of the individual to liberty and the need for free, fair and effective investigation. The investigation is at a nascent stage and the recovery of the weapon and verification of facts are yet to be carried out”, it added.

The Bench stated, “The plea of false implication raised by the petitioner was a disputed question of fact and involved appreciation of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage and the same could only be adjudicated upon the conclusion of the investigation or during the course of trial. In the considered opinion of this Court, granting anticipatory bail at this stage may likely to hamper the on-going investigation.”

Holding the application to be devoid of merits, the Bench dismissed the same with costs of ₹20,000, to be deposited by the petitioner with Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Panipat.

Cause Title: Ankit Rawal v. State of Haryana (Case No.:CRM-8361-2026)

Click here to read/download Order




Punjab & Haryana High CourtJustice Sumeet Goel

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.