SC Warns Against Repeated Bail Pleas.

Summary of the Supreme Court Order in Parteek Arora vs. State of Punjab

In the case Parteek Arora vs. State of Punjab (SLP [Crl.] Diary No. 1920/2025), the petitioner challenged the dismissal of his second anticipatory bail petition by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and sought pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition (SLP) and imposed costs of ₹2,00,000 on the petitioner. Below is a summary of key developments and conclusions in the case:

Background of the Case:

1. FIR Details: The FIR was registered on 25.06.2023 against the petitioner, but no action was taken by the police for over a year.
2. First Anticipatory Bail Application: The petitioner had previously applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the High Court.
3. Second Anticipatory Bail Application (CRMM 48729/2024):
   • Filed after the first rejection.
   • After extensive arguments, the petitioner’s counsel withdrew the petition on 30.09.2024, leading to its dismissal as withdrawn.
4. Subsequent Application (CRM 41840/2024):
   • Filed in the disposed case (CRMM 48729/2024) to seek relief.
   • On 11.12.2024, the High Court criticized the lack of action by the police and directed the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, to file a status report via an affidavit. The Deputy Commissioner of Police was also ordered to appear personally on 19.12.2024.
   • The case was adjourned multiple times, and the application was eventually withdrawn on 20.01.2025 without being argued.

Supreme Court’s Observations:

1. Misuse of Procedural Law: The Court noted that the petitioner was attempting to circumvent procedural law by withdrawing and filing successive petitions without genuine grounds.
2. Inaction by Police: Despite rejection of anticipatory bail applications, the police failed to arrest the petitioner for several months, suggesting collusion between the petitioner and the police authorities.
3. Delay Tactics: The Court observed that after the dismissal of the second bail application, the petitioner avoided surrender and filed repetitive applications for relief without substantive grounds.

Supreme Court’s Orders:

1. Dismissal of SLP: The special leave petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
2. Costs Imposed: The petitioner was directed to pay ₹2,00,000 to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority within one week as a penalty for misusing procedural law.
3. Arrest Ordered: The Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, was directed to arrest the petitioner within three days and submit an affidavit to the Supreme Court by the fourth day.
4. Next Hearing: The case was scheduled for further orders on 29th January 2025, following the submission of the affidavit.

Key Takeaway: The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of procedural misuse and emphasized the responsibility of law enforcement to act promptly. It also sent a clear message against repeated attempts to delay legal proceedings, upholding the importance of procedural integrity in the justice system.