Allahabad High Court
Adil vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:91249
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42055 of 2021
Applicant :- Adil
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Shankar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Devendra Kumar Singh,Rakesh Prasad
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Applicant-Adil has approached this Court by way of filing present bail application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 310 of 2021, under Sections 363, 376(3) IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad.
2. This application was filed on 08.09.2021 and was taken up for hearing earlier on five dates, however, on last two dates, i.e., 15.09.2023 and 18.10.2023 it was adjourned due to his absence of learned counsel for applicant. Today also Sri Shyam Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, is not present.
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 it?s 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 D.P.S. Chauhan, learned AGA for State and Sri Rakesh Prasad, Advocate for Informant are present. They submit that it is a case of kidnapping rape of a minor girl. They further submit that not only victim has supported prosecution case in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. but she remained consistent during trial also where her statement is recorded as PW-1 and they referred her statement annexed alongwith counter affidavit.
7. In aforesaid circumstances, considering nature of evidence at this stage before Trial Court, prayer for bail is rejected.
8. However, considering that applicant is in jail since 28.03.2021, i.e., for about three years, therefore, in the interest of justice, even in absence of learned counsel for applicant, this application is disposed of with observation that in case trial is not proceeded much within ten months from today, the applicant will have liberty to approach this Court or Trial Court concerned alongwith status of trial.
9. A copy of this order be communicated to applicant through Jail Superintendent concerned.
10. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
Order Date :- 21.5.2024
AK
