Can Accused Recall Withdrawal of Anticipatory Bail Plea by Claiming ‘No Instructions’? P&H High Court Says No, Imposes Costs
Case Name: Ankit Rawal v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: March 16, 2026
Citation: CRM-8361-2026
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a judicial order passed on the basis of a statement made by counsel cannot be recalled merely on the ground that such statement was made without instructions. The Court ruled that such pleas undermine the sanctity of judicial proceedings and are not maintainable in view of Section 403 BNSS (corresponding to Section 362 CrPC). The Court further held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in serious offences like murder when investigation is at a nascent stage and custodial interrogation is required.
Summary: The petitioner filed an application seeking recall of an earlier High Court order dated 28.01.2026, whereby his anticipatory bail plea in a murder case (FIR under Sections 302, 148, 149 IPC etc.) had been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek regular bail. The recall was sought on the ground that the petitioner’s earlier counsel had made a statement before the Court undertaking that the petitioner would appear before the trial Court within seven days without proper instructions.
The petitioner contended that he had neither authorized such an undertaking nor consented to it, and that he came to know of the statement only after the order was passed. On merits, it was argued that his name did not appear in the FIR, no specific role was attributed to him, and his involvement was based only on disclosure statements. He also pointed out that some witnesses had turned hostile and no recovery had been effected from him.
The State opposed the application, submitting that the earlier order was passed after due hearing and on a voluntary statement by counsel. It was further argued that the allegations pertained to a brutal group assault resulting in death, that incriminating material had been recovered, and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary for effective investigation.
The Court first addressed the maintainability of the recall application and held that no material was placed on record to substantiate the claim that the counsel acted without instructions. It emphasized that statements made by counsel are presumed to be authorized and binding, and allowing litigants to resile from such statements would destabilize judicial proceedings. The Court observed that a Vakalatnama confers implied authority on counsel, and disowning counsel’s actions after an adverse outcome would amount to abuse of process.
On merits, the Court noted the gravity of the offence under Section 302 IPC, the nature of the attack involving multiple assailants armed with deadly weapons, and the stage of investigation. It held that anticipatory bail at this stage would impede effective investigation and that disputed questions such as false implication cannot be adjudicated at the pre-trial stage.
The Court also strongly deprecated the petitioner’s attempt to disown counsel’s statement, terming it a “procedural heresy” and an abuse of the judicial process, warning that such conduct erodes the integrity of legal proceedings.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the recall application as not maintainable and devoid of merit. It also rejected the plea for anticipatory bail and imposed costs of ₹20,000 on the petitioner, directing deposit with the CJM, Panipat for remittance to the Haryana State Legal Services Authority.