Supreme Court Dismisses Anticipatory Bail SLP with Costs for Abuse of Process in Parteek Arora v. State of Punjab

Case Details

This Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 1920 of 2025 was decided by a Supreme Court of India Bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar on 22 January 2025. The proceeding arose from a criminal matter under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning an application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, Parteek Arora @ Parteek Juneja, challenged the order dated 30 September 2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in his second anticipatory bail petition (CRMM-48729/2024). The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, imposed substantial costs, and issued specific directions for the petitioner's arrest.

Facts

The factual and procedural matrix, as discerned from the judgment, is as follows. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the petitioner on 25 June 2023. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner filed his first anticipatory bail application before the High Court, which was refused. Subsequently, he filed a second anticipatory bail petition, numbered as CRMM-48729/2024. On 30 September 2024, after hearing arguments at length, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition. The High Court accordingly dismissed it as withdrawn. Following this, the petitioner filed an application, CRM-41840/2024, in the already disposed of anticipatory bail matter. On 11 December 2024, the High Court, taking a stringent view, noted that despite the refusal of anticipatory bail over three months prior, the police had taken no steps to arrest the accused or declare him a proclaimed offender. The Court observed that this indicated possible collusion between the police and the accused and directed the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, to file a personal affidavit detailing the investigation status. It also directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, to remain personally present on the next date, 19 December 2024. While CRM-41840/2024 was pending, the petitioner filed the instant Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court on 10 January 2025, challenging the High Court's order dated 30 September 2024. On 10 January 2025, when CRM-41840/2024 was listed before the High Court, an adjournment was sought. Finally, on 20 January 2025, the petitioner withdrew CRM-41840/2024 without pressing it, choosing instead to pursue the Supreme Court petition.

Issues

The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were: (1) Whether the Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court's order dated 30 September 2024, by which the second anticipatory bail application was dismissed as withdrawn, was maintainable and meritorious; (2) Whether the petitioner's conduct, involving the withdrawal of bail applications when the Court was disinclined to grant relief, followed by filing applications in disposed of matters and then a Special Leave Petition, constituted an abuse of the process of law and procedural circumvention; and (3) What consequential orders, including the imposition of costs and directions to the police, were warranted in light of the findings on the petitioner's conduct and the status of investigation.

Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition in its entirety, imposing costs of ₹2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lakh) on the petitioner and issuing a mandatory direction for his arrest. The Court's reasoning, elaborated step by step on each distinct issue, is as follows.

The Court first addressed the maintainability and substantive merit of the challenge to the impugned order dated 30 September 2024. The petitioner's counsel vehemently argued that the High Court passed the order without affording a proper opportunity. The Supreme Court meticulously examined the sequence of events and rejected this contention. It found that the High Court's order was a direct consequence of the petitioner's own strategic decision. After detailed arguments were heard, the petitioner's counsel, upon realizing that the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail, voluntarily chose to withdraw the petition. The High Court merely recorded this request and dismissed the petition as withdrawn. Therefore, the order was not an adjudication on merits against the petitioner but a procedural termination at his behest. The Supreme Court held that challenging such an order, which was the outcome of the petitioner's own tactical withdrawal, was inherently lacking in merit. The petitioner could not be permitted to withdraw an application to avoid an adverse order on merits and then challenge the very act of withdrawal, alleging lack of opportunity. This, the Court found, was a disingenuous attempt to re-litigate an issue he had voluntarily abandoned.

The Court then proceeded to its central and most critical finding: that the petitioner's overall conduct amounted to a blatant abuse of procedural law and an attempt to circumvent the justice delivery system. The reasoning on this issue was multi-faceted and based on a holistic view of the petitioner's actions. First, the Court noted the foundational fact: a criminal case was registered in June 2023, and the petitioner had been denied anticipatory bail twice by the High Court (first on the initial application, and second when he withdrew the subsequent application upon seeing the Court's disinclination). Despite these explicit refusals of pre-arrest protection, the petitioner had not surrendered to the custody of the law. His continued liberty after the judicial denial of anticipatory bail was, in itself, a red flag.

Second, the Court analyzed the petitioner's procedural maneuvers. After withdrawing the second bail application on 30 September 2024, the petitioner did not surrender. Instead, he filed CRM-41840/2024 in the disposed of matter. The Supreme Court interpreted this action as a calculated move to create a parallel procedural track, perhaps to delay or derail the investigation and arrest process. The High Court, upon hearing this application, passed a stringent order on 11 December 2024, highlighting police inaction and potential collusion. The Supreme Court noted that the filing of this application in a disposed of case, and the subsequent High Court order, became a springboard for the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court via the SLP.

Third, the Court examined the timing and intent behind the SLP. The SLP was filed on 10 January 2025, while CRM-41840/2024 was still pending before the High Court. However, on the very day of filing the SLP, the petitioner sought an adjournment in the High Court. Subsequently, on 20 January 2025, he withdrew CRM-41840/2024 without pressing it. The Supreme Court construed this sequence as a clear strategy: the petitioner invoked the Supreme Court's jurisdiction not out of a genuine grievance but as a tactical alternative to avoid facing the music before the High Court, which had already expressed serious concerns about police collusion and had summoned senior police officials. By withdrawing the High Court application and pressing the SLP, the petitioner sought to shift forums and continue his evasion.

The Supreme Court synthesized these actions and held that this was a classic case where a litigant was manipulating procedural provisions to indefinitely delay his arrest and obstruct the course of justice. The petitioner's intent, as discerned by the Court, was to take undue advantage of procedural law for reasons best known to him. The Court emphatically stated that such conduct, which treats judicial processes as tools for evasion rather than instruments of justice, cannot be countenanced. It undermines the authority of the courts and makes a mockery of the criminal justice system. The refusal to surrender after the denial of anticipatory bail strikes at the very root of the principle that bail is a discretionary relief and its refusal implies the necessity of custody for the purposes of investigation or trial.

Based on the above findings, the Court turned to the question of consequential orders. On the issue of costs, the Court held that the petition was not only meritless but was filed with an ulterior motive to abuse process. To deter such conduct and to signal that the judicial system will not tolerate tactical litigation designed to delay criminal proceedings, the Court imposed significant costs of ₹2,00,000. These costs were directed to be deposited with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority within one week, with proof to be filed before the Court. This direction serves a dual purpose: it acts as a punitive measure against the petitioner and a compensatory measure that benefits the legal aid system.

Finally, addressing the alarming state of affairs regarding the investigation, the Court issued a peremptory direction to the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar. Noting that even after the rejection of two bail applications the petitioner remained at large, and conscious of the High Court's earlier observations about police inaction, the Supreme Court mandated the Commissioner of Police to arrest the petitioner within three days from the date of its order. Furthermore, it required the Commissioner to file an affidavit before the Registry of the Supreme Court on the fourth day confirming compliance. The Court listed the matter for 29 January 2025 for orders regarding the compliance affidavit. This direction was a necessary and direct intervention to ensure that its judgment was given practical effect and that the investigative machinery performed its duty, thereby upholding the rule of law.

Quotes

The judgment contains several essential extracts that encapsulate the Court's reasoning and findings:

"After perusal of the aforesaid material, it is clear that when the second application for anticipatory bail was listed on 30.09.2024, it was argued at length and thereafter, the counsel for the petitioner withdrew the said anticipatory bail petition."

"In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that this is one of such case in which the petitioner wishes to circumvent the procedural law. Even after registration of a criminal case and refusal of anticipatory bail twice by the High Court, petitioner has not surrendered."

"But, it is a fact that even after rejection of the first bail application and the second bail application, the petitioner has not been taken into custody. Thereby, petitioner intends to take undue advantage of procedural law for reasons best known."

"In that view of the matter, we are inclined to dismiss this special leave petition with costs of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs)."

"We direct the Commissioner of Police, Amrtisar, to arrest the petitioner within three days and to file an affidavit before the Registry of this Court on the fourth day."