The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has taken a stern view of professional misconduct by an advocate, imposing a cost of ₹20,000 for attempting to “deceive the Court.” The Court found that the counsel had submitted an “illness slip” to seek an adjournment while simultaneously appearing in a different courtroom. Consequently, the Court also rejected the anticipatory bail applications of his clients, Arun Kumar Yadav and Shiv Prakash Singh, noting they already enjoyed protection from another bench.
Background
The case arose from two anticipatory bail applications moved under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The first application (No. 2375 of 2025) was filed by Arun Kumar Yadav, and the second (No. 2551 of 2025) by Shiv Prakash Singh. Both sought protection from arrest in Case Crime No. 411 of 2020, involving charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi.
The dispute involves a long-standing conflict over the management of Jay Prakash Degree College, Umraha. According to the applicants, the college was run by a society, Jay Prakash Smarak Sewa Samiti, but the opposite party no. 2 (the informant) had allegedly attempted to transfer management to a private trust. This conflict resulted in a “series of litigation,” including writ petitions and multiple FIRs. The applicants contended that the current FIR was lodged with “ill-will” and to “wreck vengeance” because the informant had failed to get relief from other authorities.
Arguments of the Parties
The applicants argued they were innocent and apprehended arrest despite a lack of “credible evidence.” They submitted that in a related matter, a coordinate bench had already granted “no coercive order” in favor of Shiv Prakash Singh on January 22, 2025.
However, the counsel for the informant presented a different set of facts. He pointed out that while these anticipatory bail pleas were pending, the applicant Arun Kumar Yadav had already challenged the charge sheet (dated December 5, 2024) via an application under Section 528 BNSS. In that proceeding (No. 5350 of 2025), a coordinate bench had stayed further proceedings on September 18, 2025.
The informant’s counsel further highlighted a breach of professional conduct by the applicants’ lawyer, Sri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava. He produced an appearance slip showing that while the counsel had sent an “illness slip” to the current court (Court No. 71) to seek an adjournment, he was simultaneously assisting a Senior Counsel in a Special Appeal before the Chief Justice’s Court.
Analysis of the Court
Justice Gautam Chowdhary observed that the primary ground for rejecting the bail was the lack of any actual “apprehension of arrest.” The Court noted:
“Since interim protection has already been granted in favour of the applicants vide order dated 18.09.2025 passed in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 5350 of 2025, therefore there is no apprehension of arrest of the applicants.”
Regarding the conduct of the counsel, the Court expressed serious concern over the waste of judicial time. The judgment noted that the cases had been repeatedly adjourned since the first quarter of 2025 due to the counsel’s absence or requests. The Court observed:
“The conduct of the counsel for the applicants demonstrate that the counsel for the applicants makes an attempt to deceive the Court that amounts to interference with the administration of justice especially when numbers of fresh cases are being filed everyday and the Courts are already overburdened with the pendency of cases.”
The Judge emphasized that as an officer of the Court, it is an advocate’s duty to “assist the Court with true facts so as to save the precious time of the Court.”
The Decision
The High Court rejected both anticipatory bail applications. Additionally, the Court imposed a cost of ₹20,000 on Sri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (Advocate Roll No. A/J-0185 of 2012).
The cost must be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within one month. The Court directed that if the amount is not deposited, the matter should be referred to the Bar Council of U.P. for appropriate action. The Office was also directed to communicate the order to the concerned lower court and the advocate immediately.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Arun Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another (with connected matter)
- Case No: Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 2375 of 2025
- Bench: JusticeGautam Chowdhary
- Date: March 24, 2026
