The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a second successive anticipatory bail plea filed by a woman accused in a Canada visa fraud case, strongly criticizing the move as “procedural adventurism” and “forum shopping.”
Presiding over the matter, Justice Sumeet Goel observed that the petitioner treated the court as a laboratory for speculative litigation. Finding the petition not maintainable due to a complete absence of any change in circumstances since the withdrawal of her first bail application, the High Court dismissed the plea on May 15 and imposed exemplary costs of Rs 20,000 on the petitioner for abusing the judicial process and deliberately evading the law.
Background of the Case
The criminal case arises from a First Information Report (FIR) registered under Sections 420 (cheating) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). According to the prosecution, the complainant was induced by the petitioner and her co-accused to pay a total sum of Rs 15,50,000 under the promise of securing Canadian visas and ensuring the settlement of his two children.
The accused persons allegedly represented themselves as capable of facilitating admissions and visas for study and settlement abroad. Relying on these assurances, the complainant paid various amounts in cash on different dates starting from October 2020. However, the prosecution alleges that the accused subsequently provided forged medical reports, failed to send the children abroad, and refused to return the money.
The High Court noted that the allegations in the FIR are serious in nature and prima facie disclose a deliberate act of cheating committed in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy.
Procedural History and Conduct of the Petitioner
This petition marked the petitioner’s second attempt to seek pre-arrest bail. Her first anticipatory bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the High Court on April 23. During those proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel had explicitly stated to the court that she would surrender before the trial court within seven working days to apply for regular bail.
Instead of honoring this undertaking, the petitioner remained at large and evaded the process of law for approximately 21 days. Rather than surrendering, she filed the instant second successive petition for anticipatory bail, prompting the High Court to scrutinize her conduct.
The Court’s Analysis on Maintainability and ‘Forum Shopping’
Analyzing the maintainability of successive bail applications, Justice Sumeet Goel emphasized that under established bail jurisprudence, a second anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable unless there is a substantial change in circumstances following the disposal or withdrawal of the first.
In this case, the High Court found that the grounds urged by the petitioner were identical to those available during her first petition. The court observed:
“Such a practice constitutes a classic case of forum shopping, where the litigant treats the halls of justice as a laboratory for speculative litigation.”
The court further noted that approaching the court repeatedly for the same relief without any material change in facts is a strategy of attrition, stating that a litigant who engages in such tactics is involved in an exercise of “testing the waters” rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.
Observations on ‘Procedural Adventurism’ and Abuse of Process
The High Court underscored that while individual liberty and dignity must be closely guarded, they cannot be used to subvert the administration of justice. The court held that although there is no express statutory bar preventing successive anticipatory bail pleas, this right “is not an absolute charter for ‘procedural adventurism’.”
The court observed:
“Protracted absence, eluding the process of law and abrupt repetition of pleas for the pre-arrest bail, in the absence of convincing reasons, is certainly not an act/behaviour which calls for sympathy/indulgence of the court.”
Justice Goel noted that the petitioner had “deliberately evaded the process of law” for 21 days after violating her own undertaking to surrender within seven working days. The court remarked that employing irregular, convoluted, and dilatory tactics designed to frustrate lawful proceedings is tantamount to an abuse of the judicial process.
Decision of the Court
Concluding that the petition suffered from the “vice of maintainability” due to the absence of any demonstrated change in circumstances, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea. To deter the abuse of the judicial process and penalize the deliberate evasion of law, the court imposed exemplary costs of Rs 20,000 on the petitioner.
