Smt Minakshi vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 17474 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt Minakshi vs State Of U.P. on 16 May, 2024

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:88760
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36302 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Smt Minakshi
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Kumar Singh,Rajendra Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjive Kumar Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
 

1. Applicant has approached this Court seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.220 of 2021, under Section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station-Bisauli, District:Budaun.

2. This bail application is pending before Court for last about three years. Sri Nagendra Kumar Singh and Sri Rajendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for applicant are not present and present status of trial is also not on record.

3. In administration of justice Advocates have a vital role to play that not only they have to represent their respective clients but being an "Officer of Court" they have to be fair towards Court and to provide their valuable assistance.

4. However often Court finds that learned counsel are not appearing to press bail application probably on a ground that they have no instructions or change of Bench, but, once they have filed a Vakalatnama which imposes a solemn duty to appear and assist the Court, they have legal and moral obligation to appear before Court to place their case, irrespective of fact that they are properly briefed or not. Sanctity of a Vakalatnama is also been described by Supreme Court in a very recent judgment of Bar of Indian lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik Vs D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr. and connected matters 2024 INSC 410 (Decided on May 14, 2024) (Para 40).

5. In this regard an observation made by Supreme Court in Rafiq and Anr. Vs Munshi Lal and Anr. (1981) 2 SCC 788 and Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Anr. Vs Raghu Raj (2008) 13 SCC 395, would also be relevant that an Advocate has to appear and argue the case as and when it is called out for hearing and failure to do so would not only discourage clients but also discourteous to the Court and it must be severely discountenanced.

6. Sri Roshan Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A appearing for State and Sri Sanjive Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the informant submit that applicant, who is in jail since 5.6.2021 is facing trial for an offence of murder. However, present status of trial is not on record.

7. In aforesaid circumstances, taking note of evidence against applicant and that present status of trial is not on record and also that applicant is in jail since 5.6.2021 , therefore, even in absence of counsel for applicant, in the interest of justice, this application is disposed of with observation that in case trial is not concluded till date, applicant will have liberty to approach this Court or Trial Court concerned, as advised, afresh alongwith status of trial. Meanwhile, Trial Court shall take all endeavour to conclude trial.

8. A copy of this order be communicated to applicant through Jail Superintendent concerned.

9. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.

Order Date :- 16.5.2024

SB