Sahil Garg v. State of Punjab, 2026
The Court reinforced the equitable nature of anticipatory bail, which cannot be misused for concealment of facts.
Judgement Details
Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Date of Decision
16 February 2026
Judges
Justice Sumeet Goel
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioner, an Advocate, was booked in a rice trading fraud case registered at Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur.
-
Allegedly, the petitioner and others induced a basmati rice supplier to deliver rice at inflated rates under false pretenses.
-
₹8 lakh was paid as security, but the balance payment was not made.
-
The petitioner filed two separate anticipatory bail petitions via different counsel, each supported by affidavits denying the pendency of other similar proceedings.
-
The State opposed anticipatory bail, citing the need for custodial interrogation to trace the money trail and investigate other FIRs against the petitioner.
-
The Court identified a pattern of deceit and attempts at forum shopping by the petitioner.
Issues
-
Whether filing multiple anticipatory bail petitions in the same FIR with affidavits denying pendency of similar proceedings amounts to forum shopping?
-
Whether suppression of material facts and filing false affidavits by an Advocate vitiates the plea for anticipatory bail?
-
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in cases involving economic offences with prima facie dishonest inducement?
-
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary to investigate financial irregularities and recover alleged cheated amounts?
Held
-
Anticipatory bail was refused.
-
Forum shopping and suppression of facts by an Advocate precluded equitable relief.
-
Custodial interrogation considered indispensable in economic offences.
-
Professional accountability emphasized: Advocates cannot claim ignorance of procedural or legal obligations.
Analysis
-
The Court reinforced the equitable nature of anticipatory bail, which cannot be misused for concealment of facts.
-
Legal reasoning emphasized that filing multiple petitions on the same cause of action with false affidavits constitutes fraud on the court.
-
The judgment relied on Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, highlighting that judicial processes must remain unsullied.
-
Custodial interrogation is justified in economic offences involving substantial dishonesty and patterns of financial fraud.
-
The Court underscored the professional responsibility of Advocates to uphold judicial integrity.
-
Imposing costs reflects the Court’s intent to deter vexatious litigation and preserve public trust in the justice system.