In a notable judgment, the Allahabad High Court emphasized the dual responsibilities of advocates in the courtroom, stressing that they should assist the court rather than cause disruptions. The court imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on advocate Arun Kumar Tripathi for his disruptive behavior during the proceedings of a bail application.
Background of the Case
The case in question, CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 16769 of 2024, involved the applicant Mohan, who sought bail in connection with Case Crime No. 13 of 2024. The charges against Mohan included serious offenses under Sections 376 and 354(C) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. The allegations were that Mohan had video recorded a woman while she was bathing, blackmailed her, and coerced her into a physical relationship by threatening to make the video viral. The prosecution claimed that Mohan continued this behavior by recording further acts of physical relationship.
Legal Issues Involved
1. False Implication and Delay in FIR: The defense argued that Mohan was falsely implicated and that the delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) undermined its credibility.
2. Lack of Forensic Evidence: The defense contended that there was no forensic report to support the prosecution’s claims and that no incriminating video was on record.
3. Criminal History: The defense highlighted that Mohan had no prior criminal history and had been in jail since January 17, 2024.
Court’s Decision
The bail application was heard by Hon’ble Justice Krishan Pahal. After considering the arguments from both sides, the court noted that the video in question had been recovered from Mohan’s mobile phone and had been sent for forensic analysis. Given the gravity of the allegations and the evidence presented, the court found no merit in granting bail to the applicant.
Key Observations by the Court:
– “After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the video has been recovered from the mobile of the applicant and has been sent for forensic analysis, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.”
– “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.”
Disruption by Advocate
Despite the court’s decision, advocate Arun Kumar Tripathi continued to argue his case, causing a disruption in the proceedings. The court noted that this behaviour was tantamount to criminal contempt but refrained from initiating contempt proceedings. Instead, a cost of Rs 10,000 was imposed on the advocate, to be deposited in the account of the High Court Legal Services Authority within 15 days.
Justice Pahal remarked:
– “The counsel for the applicant not only continued to argue the case after the order had been passed in open Court but also caused a disturbance and disrupted the proceedings. This behavior is considered criminal contempt of Court, as it undermines the authority and decorum of the judicial process.”
Also Read
Case Details:
– Applicant: Mohan
– Opposite Party: State of Uttar Pradesh
– Counsel for Applicant: Arun Kumar Tripathi
– Counsel for Opposite Party: R.P. Patel
– Judge: Hon’ble Justice Krishan Pahal
– Case Number: CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 16769 of 2024
