Anticipatory Bail Is Not a Sanctuary for Economic Offenders: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Forum Shopping, Imposes ₹50,000 Costs

“Litigant Who Pollutes the Stream of Justice Is Not Entitled to Relief” –  In a strongly worded and reportable judgment Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed two anticipatory bail petitions arising out of the same FIR, declining relief both on merits and on the ground of suppression of material facts and forum shopping.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel not only refused the concession of pre-arrest bail in an alleged large-scale commercial cheating case involving basmati rice transactions but also imposed exemplary costs of ₹50,000/- on the petitioner for filing two separate petitions through different counsel while falsely affirming that no similar proceedings were pending.

The Court observed that anticipatory bail is an “extraordinary remedy” and in economic offences affecting the economic fabric of society, such relief must be granted sparingly. It further held that a litigant who approaches the Court with “tainted hands” cannot seek equitable relief.

Inducement, Part Payment, and Non-Payment in Rice Transactions

The FIR alleged that the complainant, managing M/s Jainam Foods, was approached by the petitioner and his associates claiming to be exporters operating under M/s Ganga Overseas and Ganga Foods, Karnal.

They allegedly offered to purchase basmati rice at a rate higher than the prevailing market rate and assured payment within 10–12 days after loading. Relying upon such representation, the complainant supplied substantial consignments between 26.10.2025 and 05.11.2025.

An amount of ₹8 lakhs was allegedly transferred as “security” to induce further supply. However, the remaining payment was allegedly withheld, and threats were extended when the complainant demanded payment.

The petitioner contended that the dispute was purely commercial in nature and that part payment had already been made. He further claimed that his bank account had been frozen and that he was merely an advocate with no direct business involvement.

“Economic Offences Stand on a Different Footing”

Rejecting the plea that the matter was purely civil, the Court held that the sequence of events — inducement by offering higher rates, repeated lifting of consignments, part payment to gain confidence, followed by non-payment — prima facie attracted the ingredients of cheating and dishonest inducement.

Justice Goel observed that “the nature and gravity of the offence, involving defrauding the complainant, necessitate a thorough investigation,” and emphasized that in economic offences, courts must exercise heightened caution.

Citing State v. Anil Sharma, the Court reiterated that custodial interrogation is “qualitatively more elicitation-oriented” and that pre-arrest protection may reduce interrogation “to a mere ritual.”

The Bench further noted that multiple similar FIRs had been registered against the petitioner within a short span, indicating a prima facie pattern that could not be ignored.

Custodial Interrogation “Indispensable”

The State argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the money trail, identify associates, verify the flow of goods and funds, and recover the alleged cheated amount.

The Court accepted this contention, holding that “it may not be possible for the investigating agency to unravel the entire truth if the petitioner is armed with a protective order.”

The plea that the petitioner was an advocate and not directly involved in business affairs did not persuade the Court at the anticipatory bail stage, particularly when the FIR attributed an active role to him in negotiations and lifting of consignments.

Forum Shopping and False Affidavits: “Affront to Judicial Sanctity”

The judgment takes a stern turn while addressing the petitioner’s conduct in filing two anticipatory bail petitions through different counsel in respect of the same FIR, each supported by affidavits stating that no similar proceedings were pending.

Justice Goel termed this conduct as “contumacious” and a blatant attempt at “forum shopping.”

“This attempt at clandestinely ‘testing the waters’ of judicial discretion by moving multiple petitions… tantamount to playing fraud with the justice dispensation system.”

The Court underscored that filing a false affidavit “is not a mere technical veniality, but a contumacious conduct that strikes at the very root of judicial integrity.”

Referring to Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that a litigant who “touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands” is not entitled to any relief.

Exemplary Costs and Recovery as Arrears of Land Revenue

Holding that the petition deserved dismissal “on this score alone,” the Court imposed costs of ₹50,000/- to be deposited with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority.

In default, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur was directed to initiate recovery through the District Administration as arrears of land revenue — a strong signal against abuse of judicial process.

Both anticipatory bail petitions were dismissed on merits and on the ground of suppression of material facts. Costs of ₹50,000/- were imposed. The Court clarified that observations made would not influence the merits of investigation.

The ruling sends a dual message: that economic offences cannot be trivialized as mere commercial disputes when allegations disclose dishonest inducement from inception, and that litigants who attempt to manipulate the judicial process through suppression and duplicity will face stern consequences.

Date of Decision: 12/02/2026