Hostile witnesses no ground for pre-arrest bail: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the hostility of a prosecution witness, including the complainant, does not by itself entitle an accused to anticipatory bail, particularly in grave offences such as homicide. Dismissing a second petition for pre-arrest bail, Justice Sumeet Goel asserted that the law did not permit an accused to “subvert and cause devolution in the process of justice” by resorting to repeated filings without substantial change in circumstances.

“It is well-settled that the testimony of hostile witnesses does not ipso facto efface the prosecution case or entitle the accused for bail. This deposition remains part of the evidentiary record and shall be evaluated in the course of trial upon appreciation of entire evidence,” the Bench observed.

Justice Goel made it clear that a second anticipatory bail petition was indeed maintainable under law, but only if backed by a “substantial change in circumstances since the earlier petition.” The change “must be significant and not merely superficial or technical, to warrant reconsideration,” otherwise successive petitions would become a device for misuse.

In the case before the court, the petitioner’s earlier plea for anticipatory bail had already been rejected on August 7. The only new ground urged was that the complainant had resiled from his earlier version and had not supported the prosecution. But Justice Goel held that “such a statement at this nascent stage of proceedings cannot be treated as determinative.

Justice Goel clarified that complainant the turning hostile could perhaps be a consideration while deciding regular bail, but not anticipatory bail. “The fact that the FIR-complainant has turned hostile may constitute a ground worth consideration for grant of regular bail but not anticipatory bail,” Justice Goel ruled.

The high court also found the petitioner’s conduct gravely adverse. He evaded arrest for over five months since dismissal of his plea in April before the lower court and again in August before the high court. Justice Goel held that “such conduct demonstrates a clear disregard for the judicial process and constitutes a compelling ground to deny the grant of anticipatory bail.”

“The prolonged evasion of the petitioner weighs heavily against the exercise of discretion in his favour under the provisions governing anticipatory bail,” the Bench asserted.

Justice Goel also cautioned against irregular tactics aimed at frustrating lawful proceedings. “Process of justice is meant to treat every individual in a manner which is equitable and fair. However, if the petitioner-accused choose to employ irregular and convoluted tactics, including undue delay, strategically aimed at frustrating the lawful proceedings/investigation, it tantamount to an abuse of the process of justice.”

Justice Goel added “liberty and dignity of an individual must be held high. However, no one could be permitted to subvert and cause devolution in the process of justice".

Referring to the petitioner’s prolonged absence, the court minced no words: “Protracted absence, eluding the process of law and abrupt repetition of pleas for pre-arrest bail, in absence of convincing reasons is certainly not an act/behaviour which calls for sympathy/indulgence of the Court. The hiatus of more than five months on part of the petitioner is inexplicable nay contumacious.”