The Allahabad High Court, on 8 July 2025, rejected the bail application filed by Smt. Pooja in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34926 of 2023, observing that the repeated absence of the applicant’s counsel amounted to professional misconduct and an abuse of the judicial process. The matter was heard by Justice Krishan Pahal.
Background:
Smt. Pooja had moved the High Court seeking bail in a criminal matter pending trial. The State of Uttar Pradesh was represented by learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, and the informant was represented by Sri Sunil Kumar Upadhyay. The matter had been listed on multiple earlier dates — specifically, 31 January 2024, 15 February 2024, 1 March 2024, 6 March 2025, and 10 April 2025 — but on none of these occasions was the applicant’s counsel present to press the bail plea.
Arguments and Observations:
The counsel for the informant informed the Court that the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC had already been recorded and the trial was nearing conclusion.
Taking serious note of the repeated non-appearance, Justice Pahal remarked that such conduct by advocates not only amounts to professional misconduct but also to “bench hunting or forum shopping.” Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal (2021) 12 SCC 612, the Court emphasized that adjournments should not be granted routinely and that courts have a responsibility to ensure efficient justice dispensation.
The Court firmly noted, “Mere pendency of the bail application cannot accrue any right in favour of the applicant. 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.”
Quoting from a Division Bench judgment in Ashwani Kumar Srivastava v. D. Sen Gupta, the Court highlighted the duty of advocates to help achieve the goal of expeditious justice. It underscored that frivolous and vexatious litigation burdens the judicial system, consuming valuable court time that should instead serve litigants with genuine grievances.
Decision:
Given the repeated absence of the applicant’s counsel and noting that the matter had, by the efflux of time, become infructuous, the Court rejected the bail application. It stated, “The instant case is the misuse of process of Court by the applicant.”
The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate the order to the concerned court or authority for necessary compliance.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt. Pooja vs State of U.P.
- Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34926 of 2023
- Counsels: For Applicant – Anil Kumar Shukla; For Opposite Party – A.G.A. Sri Anit Kumar Shukla and Sri Sunil Kumar Upadhyay
