The Allahabad High Court dismissed a second bail application filed by an accused in a sexual assault case, holding that no fresh grounds had been shown to warrant reconsideration. The Court also made a significant observation on the duties of advocates, stressing that lawyers must assist the Court and not disrupt proceedings, underscoring that any disturbance after pronouncement of an order undermines judicial dignity.
The case arose from allegations that the applicant had outraged the modesty of a woman. According to the prosecution, the victim later escalated her statement to allege aggravated sexual assault. The applicant, who has a criminal history, contended that he had been falsely implicated and that there was delay in filing the FIR. His first bail plea was rejected earlier this year.
Despite this, the applicant moved a second bail plea before the High Court. However, no new grounds were advanced, leading to reconsideration of the matter.
Counsel for the applicant argued that the case was fit for bail, reiterating submissions relating to delay in lodging the FIR, lack of medical corroboration, and the applicant’s readiness to cooperate with trial. The State opposed the plea, contending that the criminal history was not satisfactorily explained and that no fresh material justified a review of the earlier rejection.
The Bench noted that the earlier bail application had already been rejected on merits after considering the applicant’s submissions. Since no new grounds had been raised in the second application, the Court found no reason to take a different view.
Importantly, after pronouncement of the rejection order in open Court, the applicant’s counsel continued to argue and disrupted proceedings. Taking note of this, the Court made stern observations on professional responsibility, “Justice underscores the dual responsibilities of Advocates in a Court of Law. While they must diligently represent and look after the interests of their clients, they also have an onerous duty to maintain a respectful and conducive environment in the courtroom. Advocates should assist the Court rather than cause disruptions, ensuring that the proceedings are orderly and respectful, which ultimately upholds the dignity of the judicial process".
The Court further noted that the counsel’s conduct amounted to criminal contempt, but it refrained from initiating proceedings. Nonetheless, the Bench categorically deprecated such behavior, stating that no litigant or lawyer can be permitted to interfere in proceedings once an order is passed.
Dismissing the second bail plea as devoid of merit, the Allahabad High Court directed the trial court to expedite the case in light of the Supreme Court’s judgments in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab and Hussain v. Union of India, provided there is no legal impediment.
The order concludes with a stern caution to advocates regarding their duty to maintain discipline and decorum in courtrooms, reiterating that disruptions after pronouncement of orders strike at the very authority of the judicial process.
Picture Source :
