Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: While considering a bail application where the statement of injured was not recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation, a Single Judge Bench of Santosh Rai, J., directed the filing of counter affidavit along with complete medical evidence/injury report and statement of injured as well as doctor within three weeks. Thereafter, the applicant’s advocate raised his voice in open Court questioning the Court’s authority in a highly objectionable tone and body language and alleged pressure of the Government. Thus, the Court initiated contempt proceeding against him.
The applicant’s advocate stated “Why are you calling for a counter affidavit in this case? You do not have the courage to seek explanation from the concerned Investigating Officer who, till date, has not recorded the statement of the injured. You have no authority to pass any order against the Investigating Officer. It appears that you are working under the pressure of the Government.”
The Court stated that the words used by the applicant’s advocate, his tone, body language and the manner in which the statements were made were highly objectionable, scandalous and derogatory, and tended to lower the authority and dignity of the Court in the eyes of those present in Court.
The Court further stated that such conduct clearly indicated an intention to interfere with and obstruct the due course of judicial proceedings, which fell within the ambit of ‘criminal contempt’ as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court highlighted that the said scandalous remarks challenged the authority of the Court and disrupted the proceedings, due to which the Court proceedings remained stalled for about ten minutes.
The Court observed that by using scandalous and intemperate language and by shouting in open Court in a loud and aggressive manner, applicant’s advocate committed acts which tend to interfere with the administration of justice. Thus, the Court opined that the matter required consideration for initiation of contempt proceedings against him. However, the Court deemed appropriate to place the issue before the Chief Justice for taking suitable action, in accordance with law.
[Kunal v. State of UP, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5069 of 2026, decided on 12-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Shireesh Kumar Mishra, Advocates
For the Opposite Party: G.A.