
The Punjab and Haryana High Court imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on a petitioner, Jagjeet Singh, after his counsel failed to disclose a prior anticipatory bail plea arising from the same…
The Punjab and Haryana High Court imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on a petitioner, Jagjeet Singh, after his counsel failed to disclose a prior anticipatory bail plea arising from the same FIR. Justice Sumeet Goel observed that such information is readily available on the court's website, and a "plea of ignorance" by counsel "borders on dereliction of requisite professionalism." The earlier petition had been withdrawn in April 2026 with a direction for the petitioner to surrender and seek regular bail.

The court noted that the fresh petition was described as the "first" petition despite the earlier proceeding and order not being mentioned. On merit, it found no change in circumstances to justify a different view. The FIR involves a fatal road accident where a Scorpio-N registered in the petitioner's name was allegedly involved, and his son was the suspected driver. The court held that the petitioner's role required investigation and dismissed the anticipatory bail plea.
The case underscores the growing judicial expectation, reinforced by several High Courts and the Supreme Court in rulings like *Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha* (2023), that advocates must use publicly accessible digital case records. Non-disclosure of a prior withdrawn bail plea is a recurring issue: it wastes court time, misrepresents the litigation history, and undermines the principle of *uberrimae fidei* (utmost good faith) required for discretionary relief like anticipatory bail. The Rs 25,000 cost, while modest, signals a readiness to sanction repeat non-compliance. Whether other courts begin imposing or escalating such penalties on a routine basis is a key signal to watch.
Source: livelaw.in
This brief was synthesised by AI from the source linked above.