Read Order: Deepu @ Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana
Chandigarh, July 4, 2022: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has recently dismissed the second petition for the grant of anticipatory bail to an NDPS Act accused whose earlier petition was withdrawn by his counsel after noticing that the High Court was not inclined towards granting such a relief to him, considering his criminal antecedents.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj held in this regard, “The earlier petition having been withdrawn after noticing that the Court was not inclined to grant any indulgence, filing of a successive petition for anticipatory bail without any changed circumstances is an evident abuse of the process.”
The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under Sections 21(b) and 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
It was brought to the notice of the Court that the first petition by the petitioner seeking concession of anticipatory bail was dismissed by the High Court on May 31, 2022 after specifically noticing that there were two other cases in which the petitioner was involved in relation to the offences of NDPS Act other than two more cases under different provisions of law.
It was in the said background and when being confronted with the same that the petition was withdrawn by the counsel for the petitioner.
The instant petition was the second petition filed by the petitioner for a similar relief (that is grant of anticipatory bail) averring that the counsel was not aware of these facts and as such he completed his instructions in order to press the present petition.
However, the Court did not find merit in the submission of the petitioner’s counsel. Justice Bhardwaj added that the same was not a fresh cause of action giving rise to any right in favour of the petitioner to pray for the concession of anticipatory bail.
Also, the Bench asserted that the earlier petition having been withdrawn after noticing that the Court was not inclined to grant any indulgence, filing of a successive petition for anticipatory bail without any changed circumstances is an evident abuse of the process.
“Even though the Court would have ordinarily imposed a cost for such an act, however, taking a lenient view in the matter, no such order is being passed“, the Court held while dismissing the petition.