Anticipatory Bail Granted On Settlement Can Be Cancelled If Compromise Is Breached: P&H High Court

Holding that an accused cannot secure anticipatory bail on the strength of a compromise and later resile from solemn undertakings made to the Court, the High Court has recalled an anticipatory bail order granted in 2022, observing that such conduct amounts to misuse of judicial leniency and breach of judicial trust.Justice Sumeet Goel said, "This Court takes judicial notice of a burgeoning and distressing trend wherein accused-petitioners utilize the prospect of an amicable settlement as a strategic artifice to procure discretionary relief, only to subsequently repudiate their commitments once liberty is secured. Such conduct leaves the complainant in a state of precarious vulnerability and reduces the machinery of justice to a state of suspended animation. This maneouver of securing freedom through the pretense of restitution, is a flagrant manipulation of the Court's leniency."The Court added that, it is a stratagem that must be met with stern condemnation and shall have no sanctuary within the equitable jurisdiction of this Court. This court finds it imperative to discourage this growing propensity for litigation opportunism where the sanctuary of a judicial undertaking is traded for temporal procedural gain.Judicial Machinery Weaponised For Private GainThe Court opined that to permit an accused-petitioner to resile from a Court-sanctioned compromise, with impunity, would be to render this Court's orders toothless and the administration of justice illusory and to view this breach as a simple civil dispute would be to allow the judicial machinery to be weaponized for private gain. The petitioner's conduct demonstrates that the promise of compliance was a deceptive artifice, intended solely to circumvent the rigors of custody without any bona fide intent to honor his commitments, it added.Shopping For Liberty Undermines Majesty Of LawCalling such conduct as 'shopping for liberty', the Court said, "through hollow undertakings undermines the majesty of the law and brings the administration of justice into disrepute. There exists no doubt that the petitioner has treated the judicial process contumely, taking the court's leniency for a ride through a pre-meditated strategy of non-compliance"Background The application for recall was filed by the FIR complainant seeking reconsideration of the order dated 17.01.2022, whereby a Coordinate Bench had granted anticipatory bail to the accused in an FIR registered under Section 420 IPC.The FIR stemmed from allegations that the accused, Director of JMS Investment Private Ltd, induced the complainant to purchase a flat in a housing project named JMS Homes (Akmi Township) on Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana. An agreement to sell dated 05.02.2013 was executed for a consideration of ₹36 lakhs, pursuant to which the complainant paid over ₹37 lakhs partly in cash and partly through cheques. Despite the agreement stipulating delivery of possession within eight months, possession was never handed over, nor was the money refunded.Grant Of Bail On Basis Of CompromiseAfter the Sessions Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea, the accused approached the High Court. During pendency of the petition, the parties were referred to mediation, where a settlement agreement dated 25.11.2021 was arrived at. Relying solely on the compromise, the High Court granted anticipatory bail on 17.01.2022, directing the parties to strictly adhere to the terms of settlement.Recall Sought For Breach Of SettlementThe complainant later approached the Court seeking recall of the bail order, contending that the accused had willfully failed to comply with the settlement terms and had never intended to honour the compromise. It was argued that anticipatory bail was granted exclusively on the basis of settlement and that the accused's conduct amounted to fraud on the Court.The accused opposed the application, contending that there was no provision under CrPC to recall a bail order, and that the complainant had alternative civil remedies to enforce the settlement.After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the earlier order granting anticipatory bail did not involve adjudication on merits and was entirely predicated on the compromise. It held that when an accused invites the Court to act upon a settlement, the compromise ceases to be a private arrangement and becomes a judicial undertaking.“By securing liberty through a Court-sanctioned compromise, the accused converts a contractual obligation into a solemn assurance to the Court. Any breach thereof is not merely civil in nature but constitutes an affront to the dignity of the Court.”The Court took judicial notice of a growing trend where accused persons use settlement as a strategic tool to obtain bail, only to later back out once liberty is secured, terming it a “shopping for liberty through hollow undertakings.”While noting the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra, cautioning courts against granting bail on the...

Anticipatory Bail Granted On Settlement Can Be Cancelled If Compromise Is Breached: P&H High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags