Accused Can't Disown Counsel's Surrender Statement By Changing Lawyer To File Second Anticipatory Bail Plea: P&H High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a second anticipatory bail petition by a truck owner in an NDPS case. It held that a litigant cannot disown a statement his earlier counsel made in court simply by engaging a new lawyer, and that a change of counsel or legal strategy is not a change in circumstances.Justice Alok Jain observed that allowing this would "open a Pandora's box"...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a second anticipatory bail petition by a truck owner in an NDPS case. It held that a litigant cannot disown a statement his earlier counsel made in court simply by engaging a new lawyer, and that a change of counsel or legal strategy is not a change in circumstances.
Justice Alok Jain observed that allowing this would "open a Pandora's box" and "seriously undermine the sanctity and credibility" of statements made by members of the Bar before the Court.
"Judicial proceedings cannot be reduced to a process wherein a party may accept a statement of counsel when advantageous and repudiate the same when its consequences become inconvenient."
The Court said the petition was a fit case for exemplary costs of ₹1,00,000, but did not impose them at the request of the petitioner's counsel.
The petitioner, Ravi Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in FIR, registered under Section 15(c) of the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, 1,033 kg 970 grams of doda/chura post was recovered from the co-accused driver of a truck owned by the petitioner.
His first anticipatory bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.09.2026. That order records that the case was argued "vehemently" on merits. When the Court was not inclined to grant relief, the counsel sought to withdraw, saying he had instructions that the petitioner was ready to surrender before the trial court. The Court allowed him to surrender within a week and directed that any regular bail application he filed afterwards be decided within a week.
The petitioner did not surrender. He instead filed the present petition through a different counsel.
The petitioner claimed he had never instructed his earlier counsel to make the statement about surrender, and raised additional pleas on merits. He also argued that no recovery was to be made from him.
The State opposed the petition and pointed to the petitioner's call detail records and WhatsApp communications showing repeated contact just before the recovery, and to his tower location, where the contraband was allegedly loaded.
The Court noted that the first petition was not withdrawn at the threshold. The State had filed its reply and the matter had been argued at length. The surrender statement was also made voluntarily, not at the Court's asking.
The Court found no material change since then. The only differences were the new counsel and some additional pleas, which it said appeared to be an attempt to counter the State's reply in the earlier petition. The petitioner, it said, "cannot be permitted to play hide and seek with the judicial process".
It held that a litigant cannot seek reconsideration of the same relief by improving on earlier pleadings or arguments. A contention available when the first petition was decided, but not argued or not argued well, is not a change in circumstances. What the law requires, it said, is a change occurring after the earlier order, "and not merely a change in counsel with the strategy to advance a different line of argument".
The Court observed that, "A Counsel duly engaged and authorized to represent a litigant before the Court speaks for the litigant and any statements made by counsel in the course of judicial proceedings cannot ordinarily be permitted to be disowned at the mere ipse dixit of the litigant, particularly when the earlier order was passed by the Court acting upon such statement."
It noted the commercial quantity recovered from the truck, which the petitioner admittedly owns, and his engagement in the transport business. Taken cumulatively with the State's CDR, WhatsApp and tower location material, it said these circumstances raise a serious question about the petitioner's role that needs thorough investigation.
It also said courts cannot overlook the menace of drug trafficking. The misuse of commercial vehicles, it said, also casts suspicion on bona fide transporters, who may then face stringent scrutiny. It held that the submission that no recovery was to be made from the petitioner does not, by itself, create "an indefeasible right to anticipatory bail".
While dismissing the plea, the Court held that the petition was an attempt to abuse the process of law.
Case Title: Ravi Kumar v. State of Haryana
Counsel: Deepak Verma for the petitioner
Swati Batra, Senior DAG, Haryana