In a high-stakes appeal arising from a dowry-death conviction, the Allahabad High Court undertook a crucial procedural examination, scrutinising whether a second bail plea could be entertained when filed through a new counsel without a No-Objection Certificate from previously engaged advocates. The case, involving a woman serving a life sentence under Section 304-B IPC, placed the spotlight on representation rights, legal aid access, and the repercussions of presumption-based conviction.
The controversy began when the convict’s second bail plea was moved not by her original counsel, but by Advocate Jyoti Rajpoot, empanelled through a Delhi-based NGO assisting marginalised women. When asked about the missing NOC from the earlier advocate, Rajpoot stated he refused to issue one despite the convict’s signed vakalatnama being duly attested from jail.
The State opposed the request, arguing her role in the death of her daughter-in-law remained unexplained, with presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act standing against her.
The bench made a significant clarification on criminal procedure, observing that “Cr.P.C. does not contain any section that makes filing a vakalatnama mandatory for filing a bail application… The NOC requirement is a matter of good practice, not a matter of right.”
Taking note of 12+ years of custody, her status as a woman, lack of direct evidence and the commitment to argue the appeal finally, the Court granted her bail, and in an unprecedented gesture directed that young pro-bono counsel Jyoti Rajpoot be paid ₹11,000 by the High Court Legal Services Committee for stepping in where representation was at stake.
Picture Source :
