Allahabad High Court: The Single Judge Bench of Krishan Pahal, J., rejected a bail application filed in 2023, holding that the repeated non-appearance of counsel for the accused amounted to professional misconduct and abuse of the process of law.
At the outset, the Court noted that the present application was listed five times from January to April 2025. The Court was then informed that the accused’s statement had been recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and the trial was at its conclusive end.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court observed that advocates were not appearing in the majority of listed cases, that too on multiple dates.
“Non-appearance of the counsel for the accused amounted to professional misconduct. It is also tantamount to bench hunting or forum shopping.”
In this regard, the Court referred to Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612, wherein the Supreme Court categorically held that Courts shall not grant adjournments in a routine and mechanical manner, and shall not be a party to causing delay in dispensing justice. It was also opined that the Courts have to be diligent and take timely action in order to usher in an efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in the rule of law.
The Court also reiterated that mere pendency of the bail application cannot accrue any right in favour of the accused. It cannot be allowed to swing years together in the cloak of pendency. The Court remarked that the accused could not be permitted to dilute the stream of justice by repeatedly remaining absent from judicial proceedings without any reasonable explanation. Absence of any reason for non-appearance is blatant abuse of the process of law.
The Court added that the resources of the Court, which included precious judicial time, were scarce and already stretched beyond elastic limits.
“Valuable Court time, which is required to be engaged in adjudication of serious judicial action, is wasted on frivolous and vexatious litigation which is misconceived and an abuse of the process of law. A judicial system has less than sufficient resources to afford justice without unreasonable delay to those having genuine grievances.”
Thus, the Court stated that increasingly, the Courts have held that the unjustified use of judicial time must be curbed and the party wasting precious judicial resources must be required to compensate not only the opposition, but also the judicial system.
Coming to the facts of the case, the Court commented that it appeared that the accused lost interest in pursuing the matter and, by the efflux of time, the application was rendered infructuous. Accordingly, the Court rejected the application, stating that the accused had misused the process of the Court.
[Pooja v. State of UP, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. – 34926 of 2023, decided on 08-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the applicant: Anil Kumar Shukla
For the respondent: Government Advocate and Sunil Kumar Upadhyay
Should advocates appear even without being paid their fees?