Court dismisses recall application for anticipatory bail order, imposes exemplary costs to deter misuse of judicial processes
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an application seeking the recall of a judicial order, emphasizing the sanctity of statements made by counsel during court proceedings. The order, dated March 16, 2026, was delivered by Justice Sumeet Goel in the case of Ankit Rawal v. State of Haryana.
Ankit Rawal, the petitioner, had filed an application under Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to recall an order dated January 28, 2026, which dismissed his anticipatory bail petition as withdrawn. The petitioner claimed that his counsel made a statement in court without proper instructions, leading to the withdrawal of the petition. He argued that he had only instructed his counsel to withdraw the anticipatory bail plea if the court was not inclined to grant the relief, and had not authorized any undertaking regarding his appearance before the trial court within seven days.
Justice Goel, in his judgment, underscored the principle that statements made by counsel at the Bar are presumed to be made with full authority unless substantial evidence to the contrary is presented. The court held that no material had been presented to substantiate the claim that the counsel acted without instructions, and emphasized that allowing such claims would undermine the integrity of the advocate-client relationship and the judicial process.
The court also addressed the substantive merits of the anticipatory bail plea. It noted the grave nature of the allegations in the FIR, which involved murder with deadly weapons by a group of accused. The court held that the gravity of the offense and the need for custodial interrogation outweighed individual liberty, and that granting anticipatory bail at this stage could impede the ongoing investigation.
Justice Goel highlighted the role of legal representatives in the judicial process, asserting that a litigant cannot disavow the actions of counsel under the guise of lack of instructions unless substantial evidence is presented. The judgment cautioned against the misuse of judicial processes and imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 20,000 on the petitioner, to be deposited with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. The costs are to be remitted to the Haryana State Legal Services Authority, Panchkula.
The court's decision reinforces the importance of judicial integrity and the authority of legal representatives, setting a precedent to deter procedural misuse and uphold the sanctity of the judicial process.
Bottom Line:
Recall of judicial order passed by the court is not permissible under Section 403 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 362 Cr.P.C.) unless an exceptional circumstance is demonstrated with substantial evidence.
Statutory provision(s): Section 403 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 362 Cr.P.C.), Section 302 IPC
Ankit Rawal v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2869546
