Allahabad High Court
Rajeev 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:88980
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34698 of 2021
Applicant :- Rajeev
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Singh,Manish Kumar Kashyap,Ravi Shankar Tripathi,V.P. Singh Kashyap
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Praveen Kumar Srivastava,Vindeshwari Prasad
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Applicant has approached this Court seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.156 of 2021, under Sections 452 and 302 of I.P.C., Police Station-Kadarchowk, District:Buduan.
2. This bail application is pending before Court for last about three years. Sri Mahendra Singh, Sri Manish Kumar Kashyap, Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi and Sri,V.P. Singh Kashyap, 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 Mithilesh Kumar, learned A.G.A appearing for State submit that applicant, who is in jail since 14.6.2021 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 14.6.2021, 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
