The Allahabad High Court allowed an application praying for bail in a case where the Counsel for the applicant had not appeared before the Court even after repeated notices.
The court observed that in the event of the non-appearance of a prisoner’s counsel, the court may appoint an amicus curiae to represent the prisoner and proceed with the hearing of the bail.
Brief Facts:
The order sheet disclosed that the counsel for the applicant did not appear before the Court on successive dates of hearing in the past. Earlier the Court had called for the status report from the trial court as well as a report from the District Legal Services Authority. The issue involved in the present case was whether the bail application should be dismissed for non-prosecution or an amicus curiae should be appointed to represent the applicant and the matter be heard on merits.
Observations of the Court:
The Court appointed an amicus Curiae to represent the applicant and assist the Court.
The Court observed that constitutional moorings of the right of bail also bring the right of fair hearing within its ambit. Legal aid is an indispensable instrument to secure the objective of justice for all citizens.
Further, the Court remarked that while deciding bail, the courts have to be cognizant of the entitlement of prisoners to legal aid, and also alert to their right to a hearing. In the event of the non-appearance of a prisoner’s counsel, the court may appoint an amicus curiae to represent the prisoner and proceed with the hearing of the bail.
Further, the Court said that dismissal of a lis for non-prosecution is a practice evolved by courts over long years for the efficient administration of justice. No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the time of the court. With the dismissal of a case for non-prosecution, the lis arrives at a terminus and is only subject to a restoration application being filed by the litigant and allowed by the court.
The Court observed that it is important though to bear in mind the distinction between a lis where civil rights are adjudicated and a criminal case in which the prisoner’s personal liberty is engaged. A litigant can elect to waive civil claims by not prosecuting them. However, citizens cannot relinquish their personal liberty even by choice. Personal liberty is irrevocably vested in every citizen by the Constitution and the courts are its permanent guardians. Absence of the counsel at a bail hearing deprives the prisoner-applicant of all ability to influence the outcome of a proceeding where his personal liberty is at stake.
The Court expounded that prisoners have no remedy against absentee counsels and little control over the adverse situation that follows. In these circumstances, the prisoner becomes a victim of “undeserved want” within the meaning of Section 12 (e) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 who is entitled to legal aid. Refusal of legal aid to this class of prisoners would entail denial of justice. In this wake, dismissal of a bail application for non-prosecution on account of absence of counsel is impermissible, as it is contrary to the rights of prisoners to legal aid under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and violative of the fundamental rights of the prisoners guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The decision of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Case Title: Maneesh Pathak v State Of U.P.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ajay Bhanot
Case no.: CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18536 of 2020
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Amaresh Yadava and Mr. Jitendra Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: G.A.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
