‘Testing The Waters’: Punjab & Haryana High Court Pulls Up Lawyer For Forum Shopping By Filing Two Bail Pleas In Same FIR, Imposes Costs
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel has declined anticipatory bail to an advocate accused in a rice trading fraud case, while holding that moving two separate pre-arrest bail petitions on the same FIR amounted to forum shopping and undermined the sanctity of judicial proceedings. The case stems from allegations that a rice trader was induced to supply substantial quantities of basmati rice on assurances of prompt payment, after which the remaining amount was not paid and threats were allegedly extended. The Court noted that the accused approached the Court through different counsel in two petitions, each backed by an affidavit denying any similar pending proceedings, describing this as “testing the waters” of judicial discretion.
Two petitions were filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre-arrest bail in an FIR registered at Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur under Sections 318(4), 317(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
As per the FIR, the complainant, stated to be engaged in the business of basmati paddy/rice, alleged that he was induced to supply multiple consignments after the petitioner and others represented themselves as traders/exporters linked with firms at Karnal and offered higher rates with payment within 10–12 days of loading. ₹8 lakhs was allegedly transferred as “security” to induce further supply, but the remaining amount was not paid and threats were allegedly extended when payment was demanded.
The State opposed bail, submitting that the petitioner was specifically named with an attributed role in inducement and procurement, that custodial interrogation was required to trace the money trail and recover the alleged cheated amount, and that multiple similar FIRs were stated to be pending against him.
Referring to: Sushila Agrawal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2020) 5 SCC 1: “Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court.”
Referring to: Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil and another: “Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to rec…”
Referring to: State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187: “We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section… In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed… Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual…”
Referring to: Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379: “Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.”
Referring to: Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998): “Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society… it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.”
The Court recorded: “The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation.”
The Court recorded: “The petitioner has sought the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail by way of two separate petitions filed through distinct counsel, predicated upon the same FIR. This duplicity is further compounded by the fact that both the petitions are supported by solemn affidavits…”
The Court recorded: “no similar proceedings were filed/pending. Such contumacious conduct is not merely a procedural lapse but a blatant attempt at … an affront to the sanctity of judicial proceedings. This attempt at clandestinely ‘testing the waters’ of judicial discretion by moving multiple petitions, espousing exactly same cause of action, tantamount to playing fraud with the justice dispensation system. The filing of a false affidavit is not a mere technical veniality, but a contumacious conduct that strikes at the very root of judicial integrity.”
The Court said that submitting a false affidavit is not a minor lapse and goes to the core of the court’s truth-finding function. It also noted that, since the petitioner is an advocate familiar with legal procedure, he could not take shelter behind a claim of ignorance, and his professional position left no room for any benefit of doubt on that issue.
The Court recorded: “The necessity of an accompanying affidavit is the bedrock upon which the court rests its presumption of truth. Such a calculated maneouver to mislead this Court…”
The Court recorded: “It is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence that a person who seeks equity must do equity and must approach the court with clean hands. The remedy of anticipatory bail by its very nature, a discretionary and equitable relief intended to protect the liberty of innocent, not to provide a sanctuary for those who practice … When the strea of justice is polluted at its very source by such deceitful artifice, the doors of equity must remain closed.”
Referring to: Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2010) 2 SCC 114: “In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals.” “A litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.”
The Court directed that “The instant petition deserves dismissal on merits as also on account of the attempt on part of the petitioner to mislead this Court by suppressing a material fact apropos pendency of similar petition espousing the same cause of action.”
“The petitioner is saddled with costs of Rs. 50,000/-, to be deposited by him with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Mohali within two weeks from today.” In case the said costs are not deposited as directed, “the CJM, Sangrur is directed to intimate the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur who shall have such costs recovered from the petitioner including but not limited to as arrears of land revenue and upon realization thereof, the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur shall have the same submitted to CJM, Sangrur, for further remittance thereof to the quarter(s) concerned. A compliance report be sent by CJM, Sangrur as also Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur to this Court accordingly.”
“Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.” It additionally directed that “Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate; Mr. Harshit Jangra, Advocate; Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab
Case Title: Sahil Garg v. State of Punjab
Neutral Citation: 2026: PHHC:022488
Case Number: CRM-M-1821-2026 and CRM-M-1845-2026
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel
