The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Krishan Pahal has recused itself from hearing a batch of 77 bail applications after litigating parties attempted to secure access to and approach the presiding judge outside court proceedings. Expressing profound anguish over the episode, the court released all connected matters from its bench and directed that the files be placed before the Chief Justice for assignment to an appropriate bench.
Background of the Case
The matter arose during the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 418 of 2026, filed by Bhola Prasad against the State of Uttar Pradesh, along with 76 connected bail applications.
During the course of the hearing, the court had fixed all the connected matters to be heard finally, noting that an order might be delivered at a later point in time.
Arguments of the Parties
Advocate Aditya Gupta appeared on behalf of the applicant Bhola Prasad, while the Government Advocate (G.A.) represented the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Court’s Analysis and Key Observations
Subsequent to fixing the matters for final hearing, efforts were made by the litigating parties to secure access to and approach the Presiding Judge.
Recording its deep concern over the incident, the court observed, “this Court records, with profound anguish and an abiding sense of institutional responsibility, that the present episode marks a black day in the history of this Court.”
Emphasizing the foundational necessity of public trust in the judiciary, the court remarked, “The very edifice of the judicial institution rests upon the unwavering confidence of the public that justice is administered impartially, fearlessly, and without any extraneous influence. Any attempt, howsoever subtle or clandestine, to interfere with or influence the judicial decision-making process constitutes a direct assault upon the majesty of the Rule of Law.”
The court highlighted that permitting such conduct to pass unnoticed would strike at the heart of judicial independence, stating, “Such conduct, if permitted to pass unnoticed, strikes at the very heart of judicial independence and erodes public confidence in the purity of the adjudicatory process.”
It further noted the damaging perception that would arise if a judgment were eventually delivered in favor of a party whose case found prima facie acceptance:
“The situation is rendered even more disturbing by the inevitable perception that would follow if the judgment were ultimately to be delivered in favour of the party whose case might find prima facie acceptance during the hearing. The order, irrespective of its legal correctness and intrinsic merit, would be susceptible to an unwarranted but damaging inference that it was the product of extraneous influence or inducement rather than an impartial judicial determination. The reputation of the institution, painstakingly built over generations, cannot be exposed to such avoidable suspicion.”
Reaffirming established principles of legal ethics and judicial propriety, the court emphasized, “The sanctity of judicial proceedings does not merely require that justice be done; it demands that justice must manifestly and unquestionably appear to have been done.”
The court further held, “Any attempt by a litigant or counsel to establish an extra-judicial channel of communication with a Judge in relation to a pending matter is wholly incompatible with the ethics governing the legal profession and the constitutional values underpinning an independent judiciary. Such an approach is an affront to judicial propriety and is utterly intolerable in the precincts of a High Court.”
Addressing the broader legal community, the court added that “the Bar and the litigant public alike must appreciate that the independence of the judiciary is not merely a privilege of Judges but a constitutional guarantee owed to every citizen.” It cautioned that “Any practice calculated to undermine that independence, or even to create an impression that judicial orders may be influenced through private approaches, is a menace to the administration of justice and deserves the strongest institutional condemnation.”
Decision of the Court
Finding it wholly inappropriate to proceed further with the matters, the court recused itself from further consideration to preserve the dignity of the institution, protect the purity of the judicial process, and eliminate any apprehension regarding impartiality.
The court released the primary bail application along with the 76 connected bail applications and directed that the cases be placed before the Chief Justice for assignment to an appropriate bench. It instructed that the cases be listed before the newly nominated bench (not before this bench), if possible, on August 7, 2026, in the daily cause list after obtaining nomination from the Chief Justice or Senior Judge.
Case Title: Bhola Prasad v. State of U.P.
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 418 of 2026 (and 76 connected bail applications)
Bench: Justice Krishan Pahal
Date: July 30, 2026
