Allahabad High Court
Vishal vs State Of U.P. on 22 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:92781
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43550 of 2021
Applicant :- Vishal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nirbhay Singh,Pankaj Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
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. 451 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Kasganj, District- Kasganj.
2. This bail application is pending before Court for last about two years and nine months. S/Sri Nirbhay Singh and Pankaj Kumar Sharma learned counsel 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 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 cases 2024 INSC 410 (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 15.07.2019, is facing trial for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. 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 15.07.2019 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 or substantially progressed 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 expedite the trial.
8. A copy of this order be communicated to applicant through Jail Superintendent concerned.
9. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
Order Date :- 22.5.2024
P. Pandey
