Non Appearance Of Advocate Amounts To Professional Misconduct: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that non-appearance of an advocate on behalf of applicant amounted to professional misconduct.

The Court said that delay due to non appearance also tantamount to bench hunting or forum shopping.

While hearing an anticipatory bail application, bench comprising Justice Krishan Pahal stated that mere pendency of the bail application could not accrue any right in favour of the applicant.

The instant application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 was filed in 2019.

The Bench noted that, "It cannot be allowed to swing years together in the cloak of pendency. The applicant cannot be permitted to dilute the stream of justice by repeatedly remaining absent from judicial proceedings without any reasonable explanation. Absence of any reason for non-appearance is blatant abuse of process of law, even though the order is available and accessible to all on the website of the High Court."

The Court said that at the time of framing of Section 438 Cr.P.C., the legislature had provided a limitation period of 30 days for disposal of anticipatory bail application. The said intention was just to avoid misuse of pendency of anticipatory bail application.

The Court observed that, "...the applicant may be taking undue advantage of the pendency of the instant application by not participating in the investigation."

The Court highlighted the decision of the Apex Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612 wherein it was categorically held that courts shall not grant adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. 

With the above-mentioned observations, the Court dismissed the instant anticipatory bail application on the ground of being infructuous.