Prior Litigation Readily Available Online; Counsel's Ignorance Borders On Professional Dereliction: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that an advocate's "plea of ignorance" about prior litigation, despite the information being readily available on the Court's website, "borders on dereliction of requisite professionalism." [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 294]

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "In an era where judicial transparency is bolstered by digital infrastructure, the failure to disclose such material fact is increasingly inexcusable. When the information regarding history of a case and other petition(s) arising out of the same FIR, is readily available via the High Court's website/public domain, a plea of ignorance by counsel filing the petition borders on dereliction of requisite professionalism."

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by Jagjeet Singh under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR registered at Police Station Bajakhana, Faridkot, concerning a road accident in which two persons, a woman and her daughter, had died.

At the outset, the Court noted that although the present petition had been described as the "first" petition, it was actually the second anticipatory bail plea arising from the same FIR.

The Registry brought to the Court's notice that the petitioner had earlier approached the High Court for the very same relief and that the earlier petition had been dismissed as withdrawn by a Coordinate Bench on April 21, 2026.

The Court imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the petitioner, holding that the omission to disclose the earlier anticipatory bail petition and its dismissal amounted to a serious breach of the duty of candour owed to the Court.

In the earlier proceeding, after arguing the matter for some time, counsel had sought permission to withdraw the petition on instructions and stated that the petitioner would surrender before the trial Court and seek regular bail. The petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, with the Court directing that if the petitioner surrendered within seven days and filed a bail application, the same be decided within three days.

Despite this, the present petition neither disclosed the earlier proceedings nor appended the April 21 order. The Court noted that there was no reference to the earlier petition in the body of the fresh petition and that it had been incorrectly described as the first petition in the headnote.

On merits, the Court found no substantial change in circumstances warranting a different view from the one taken by the Coordinate Bench.

The FIR was initially registered against an unknown vehicle and driver after a woman and her daughter were allegedly hit by a white-coloured vehicle while proceeding towards village Lambhwali. Both subsequently succumbed to their injuries.

During investigation, the vehicle was allegedly identified as a Scorpio-N registered in the petitioner's name. The investigation further revealed that the vehicle's number plate carried two different registration numbers, following which additional offences were added. The petitioner's son was alleged to have been driving the vehicle.

The petitioner argued that he was neither driving the vehicle nor present at the spot and that he could not be made criminally liable merely because he was the registered owner and father of the alleged driver.

The Court held that the petitioner's role, knowledge and involvement in those circumstances required investigation and that the release of the vehicle on supurdari was not sufficient to justify anticipatory bail.

The High Court emphasised that a litigant seeking discretionary relief such as anticipatory bail has an affirmative duty to disclose all material facts, particularly the history of previous bail applications.

"The integrity of the adjudicatory process rests upon the foundational requirement of utmost good faith," the Court observed.

It said that disclosure of previous bail applications is not merely a procedural formality but a substantive prerequisite because consideration of a successive bail plea necessarily requires the Court to examine whether there has been any change in circumstances since the earlier dismissal.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, wherein directions were issued for bail applications to mandatorily disclose details and copies of orders passed in earlier bail applications, details of pending bail applications and whether the plea was a first, second or subsequent application.

It observed that when the history of a case and other petitions arising from the same FIR are readily available through the High Court's website and public domain, failure to disclose such information is increasingly difficult to justify.

The Court said that a plea of ignorance by counsel "borders on dereliction of requisite professionalism."

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Court reiterated that advocates, as officers of the Court, are expected to assist the Court fairly and have a duty to diligently verify facts from the record using their legal acumen.

The Court stressed that the obligation of candour assumes its "highest zenith" when a litigant invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court for anticipatory bail.

The Court held that approaching the Court with clean hands is not a mere technicality but a mandatory condition precedent. Concealment of such a material fact was characterised as an "unpardonable subversion of the rule of law."

Holding that the petition was devoid of merit both because there was no substantial change in circumstances and because the earlier petition had not been disclosed, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea.

The Court imposed costs of ₹25,000, directing that the amount be deposited with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot within four weeks. The amount, upon deposit, is to be remitted to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Mohali.

Appearances: Mr. Kunwar Rajan, Advocate for the petitioner;

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG, Punjab.

Click here to read order