The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sent out a sharp warning to accused persons who treat court assurances as bargaining chips rather than binding commitments. Calling out a growing pattern of litigants making grand promises to secure bail—and then quietly abandoning them once free—the Court said such conduct strikes at the very spine of judicial fairness.
The observation came as the Court revoked anticipatory bail earlier granted to a director of an investment company accused of cheating in connection with a housing project near Ludhiana. The relief, the Court noted, had been granted solely on the strength of a mediated settlement that was never honoured.
The Court said it is increasingly encountering cases where the prospect of an “amicable settlement” is used as a tactical lure to win pre-arrest protection. Once liberty is secured, those assurances evaporate. This, the Court held, is not clever litigation—it is a misuse of judicial trust.
Describing the practice as “shopping for liberty,” the Court warned that allowing accused persons to walk away from court-endorsed compromises without consequence would hollow out the authority of judicial orders. Such manoeuvres, it said, turn the justice system into a tool for private advantage and reduce court directions to empty formalities.
In the case at hand, the dispute arose after a homebuyer paid over ₹37 lakh for a flat in a housing project, partly in cash and partly through bank transfers. Possession was promised within eight months. It never came. Repeated demands for either the flat or a refund went unanswered, leading to criminal proceedings for cheating.
When the accused approached the High Court for pre-arrest bail, the parties were sent to mediation. A written settlement followed, under which the builder undertook to provide an alternative furnished flat and complete registration within a stipulated timeline. Trusting this assurance, the Court granted anticipatory bail.
That trust proved misplaced. The buyer later returned to court, stating that none of the promises had been fulfilled. Taking a stern view, the Court set aside the earlier bail order, reassessed the matter on merits, and held that the accused was not entitled to pre-arrest protection given the gravity of the allegations.
Along with cancelling bail, the Court imposed costs of ₹25,000, directing the amount to be paid to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority. The accused was also ordered to surrender before the trial court within 15 days.
The message was unmistakable: undertakings given to a court are not trial balloons. They are solemn assurances. Treating them as disposable strategies, the Court said, erodes the sanctity of the judicial process—and will be met with firm consequences.
