Punjab and Haryana High Court: While hearing a petition filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in FIR under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), when his counsel began searching information on his mobile phone while arguing, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Vashisth J. criticized his conduct and held that it was unacceptable, discourteous and unprofessional to use mobile phone while addressing the arguments in the Court.
In the said petition, there was no disclosure regarding the registration or pendency of any other criminal cases against the petitioner. However, the respondent’s counsel pointed out that he was involved in another FIR under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the IPC involving similar allegations against him. The petitioner’s counsel began searching on his mobile phone, during submissions, to figure out the details of the aforementioned FIR.
The Court stated that such a practice was wholly unacceptable for the two following reasons:
-
The usage of the mobile phone while addressing the arguments in the Court reflected a discourteous and unprofessional attitude which couldn’t be condoned.
-
The mobile phones were not considered as professional tools integrated with the office setup and case files during arguments in the Court proceedings like iPads or laptops.
The Court directed seizure of the said counsel’s phone till 5.00 PM on the day of hearing and adjourned the matter at hand.
[Ravneet Singh Sandhu v. State (UT of Chandigarh), 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 10515, decided on 19-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Jashan Mehta, Advocate
For the Respondent: Balram Singh, Addl. PP, UT, Chandigarh
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
