Non-Appearance Of Advocate For His Client Amounts To Professional Misconduct: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal observed thus while dismissing an anticipatory bail plea filed by an accused in the year 2019 as infructuous as it noted that both the applicant and his counsel were absent during the court hearings.

Taking exception to the same, the Court stressed that mere pendency of the bail application cannot accrue any right in favour of the applicant and that such petitions cannot be allowed to swing years together in the cloak of pendency.

“The applicant cannot 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 process of law, even though the order is available and accessible to all on the website of the High Court,” the Court added.

Further, referring to Sub-Section 5 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. [Uttar Pradesh Act 4 of 2019, s. 2 (w.e.f. 01.06.2019)] the Court emphasised that the anticipatory bail application be finally disposed of within thirty days of the date of such application.

“At the time of framing of Section 438 Cr.P.C., the legislature has provided a limitation period of 30 days for disposal of anticipatory bail application. The said intention is just to avoid misuse of pendency of anticipatory bail application,” the Court added.

Further, observing that the applicant may be taking undue advantage of the pendency of the instant application by not participating in the investigation, the Court dismissed the petition as infructuous

Case title - Jhinnu vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 106

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 106

Click here To Read/Download Order