The Supreme Court recently refused to hear a plea challenging Allahabad High Court order that rejected anticipatory bail of Badri Shrestha, a former advisor of Lucknow’s Gomti River Front project.
Shrestha is accused of massive corruption and extensive irregularities in the project’s implementation.
Having filed an anticipatory bail before the Allahabad High Court, Shrestha’s plea was dismissed through a detailed judgment on December 15, 2022. Consequently, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed before the Apex Court to challenge this decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP while noting the following:
“After some hearings, the learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner would voluntarily appear before the Trial Court and apply for bail. It was also asserted that the observations made in the impugned order should not adversely impact the consideration of the bail application. It is clarified that if the petitioner seeks bail, the Trial Court must impartially consider and promptly issue orders, uninfluenced by any prior court decisions.”
Instead of surrendering or utilizing the liberty granted by the Top Court, Shrestha chose to file a second anticipatory bail application before the High Court. However, the High Court dismissed the application while addressing the restricted scope of a second bail application. The court noted:
“Second bail application/anticipatory bail application is to be considered only on limited ground. Change of law or some new facts cannot be a ground for enlarging an accused on anticipatory bail whose Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) got dismissed by the Supreme Court. Second application for anticipatory bail is neither review nor appeal. For deciding a second bail application, there is limited ground which is change of circumstance. Change of some judgments in between cannot be a ground for enlarging an accused for anticipatory bail application particularly when he consented to comply with the liberty granted by the Supreme Court in its order dated 07.02.2023.”
During the hearing before a vacation Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal, a warning was issued to the Senior Counsel representing Shrestha at the outset. The Bench cautioned that they should be prepared to bear the cost and emphasized that the situation amounted to an abuse of the legal process. It further stated that while the High Court had chosen not to impose any costs, they would not be as lenient.
In response, the Senior Counsel expressed their intention to withdraw the petition and abide by the previous order of the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the Bench recorded in the order, “The Senior Counsel for the petitioner, based on instruction, states that the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition and take necessary steps to comply with the judgment dated 07.02.2023.”
Justice Kohli admonished the Senior Counsel, stating, “You should have advised your client. Your client is disregarding the law.”
