Allahabad High Court
Dharmveer vs State Of U.P. on 17 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:89687
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40786 of 2021
Applicant :- Dharmveer
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma,Ramanuj Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jay Prakash Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Applicant has approached this Court by way of filing present bail application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 208 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 328 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Tappal, District Aligarh.
2. This bail application is pending before Court for last about 3 years. S/Sri Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma and Ramanuj Tripathi, learned advocates for applicant are not present and present status of trial is also not on record.
3. In the 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 the court to place their case, irrespective of the fact that they are properly briefed or not. Sanctity of a vakalatnama has also been described by Supreme Court in a very recent judgment of Bar of Indian lawyers through it?s President Jasbir Singh Malik Vs D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr. 2024 INSC 410 and connected cases (Para 40) (Decided on May 14, 2024)
5. In this regard an observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of 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 be only discouraging to the clients but also discourteous to the court and it must be severely discountenanced.
6. Sri Roshan Kumar Singh, learned AGA appearing for State, submits that applicant, who is in jail since 27.05.2021, is facing trial for offence of cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry, 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 27.05.2021, 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 after reasonable period. 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 :- 17.5.2024
N. Sinha
