'Testing Waters': Punjab & Haryana High Court Pulls Up Lawyer Who Moved Two Bails Pleas In Same FIR, Imposes Costs

The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused anticipatory bail to an Advocate, booked in a rice trading fraud case, holding that the filing of two separate pre-arrest bail petitions in the same FIR—supported by affidavits denying pendency of similar proceedings—amounted to “forum shopping” and an affront to judicial sanctity.

Justice Sumeet Goel observed that the petitioner had sought discretionary relief through two petitions filed via different counsel, both based on the same FIR. The Court noted that each petition was supported by a solemn affidavit stating that no similar proceedings had been filed or were pending.

Calling the conduct “not merely a procedural lapse but a blatant attempt at 'forum shopping',” the Court said the act of clandestinely “testing the waters” of judicial discretion by moving multiple petitions on the same cause of action was tantamount to playing fraud on the justice delivery system.

The Court underscored that filing a false affidavit strikes at the very root of judicial integrity. Observing that the petitioner is himself an Advocate, the Court held that the plea of ignorance was unavailable to him and that his professional status precluded any benefit of doubt.

“The necessity of an accompanying affidavit is the bedrock upon which the Court rests its presumption of truth,” Justice Goel remarked, adding that such calculated manoeuvres threaten to turn the wheels of law into a tool for systematic manipulation.

“Stream Of Justice Must Not Be Polluted”

Emphasising that a litigant seeking equitable relief must approach the Court with clean hands, the Court observed that anticipatory bail is a discretionary and equitable remedy meant to protect liberty—not to provide sanctuary to those who suppress material facts.

Placing reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court underscored the growing tendency of litigants to resort to falsehood and suppression of facts. The Supreme Court had cautioned that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.

Justice Goel held that the plea for anticipatory bail deserved rejection on this ground alone, observing that vexatious attempts to misuse court processes must be dealt with firmly to preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings.

Allegations In Fraud Case

The two petitions were filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in FIR registered at Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur under Sections 318(4), 317(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

As per the FIR, the complainant, engaged in the business of basmati rice—was allegedly induced to supply substantial quantities of rice at higher-than-market rates by the petitioner and others, who represented themselves as exporters operating under the names M/s Ganga Overseas and Ganga Foods, Karnal. An amount of ₹8 lakh was allegedly transferred as security, but the remaining payment was not made.

The State opposed the plea, submitting that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the money trail and investigate multiple similar FIRs registered against the petitioner.

Custodial Interrogation Necessary In Economic Offence

The Court observed that the allegations prima facie disclosed dishonest inducement and cheating involving substantial goods. Referring to cases including State v. Anil Sharma and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), it reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, particularly in economic offences.

Justice Goel held that custodial interrogation was indispensable to trace the money trail, ascertain the role of co-accused and recover the alleged cheated amount. The multiplicity of similar FIRs also indicated a pattern that could not be ignored.

Dismissing both petitions on merits as well as for suppression of material facts, the Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 to be deposited with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Mohali within two weeks.

Title: Sahil Garg v. State of Punjab

Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Harshit Jangra, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-1821-2026.

Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-1845-2026.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

Click here to read order