In a significant procedural ruling, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has clarified that the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) does not mandate the filing of a ‘Vakalatnama’ or a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) from a previous counsel for filing a bail application. The Court held that demanding an NOC is merely a matter of “good practice” and cannot override the accused’s fundamental right to be represented by a lawyer of their choice.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary made these observations while granting bail to Smt. Manorama Shukla, a woman convicted in a dowry death case who has been incarcerated for nearly 13 years.
Key Ruling: NOC and Vakalatnama Not Mandatory
The legal issue arose when the appellant’s new counsel, Ms. Jyoti Rajpoot, informed the Court that she was appearing pro bono on behalf of an NGO, Life and Liberty Foundation, but the previous advocate on record had refused to provide a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC).
Resolving this procedural hurdle, the High Court laid down the following key principles:
- No Statutory Mandate: The Court observed that the Cr.P.C. does not contain any specific section making the filing of a Vakalatnama mandatory for filing a bail application—whether it is for regular bail, anticipatory bail, or suspension of sentence.
- Right to Representation: Referring to Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 303 and 41-D of the Cr.P.C., the Court reiterated that an accused has a fundamental right to be represented by an advocate of their choice.
- NOC is ‘Good Practice’, Not Law: The Bench explicitly stated that while courts require authorization for an advocate to act, the requirement of an NOC from an earlier counsel is a rule of practice, not law.
The Court observed:
“The Cr.P.C. only requires that the accused be represented by a duly authorized advocate. Moreover, although Cr.P.C. does not mandates, however, the Courts require some form of authorization for an advocate to act on behalf of the accused/convict and the providing of an NOC by the earlier counsel is as a matter of ‘good practice’ rather than a matter of right, especially in criminal cases, wherein life & liberty of a detenue is an issue…”
Role of NGOs in Criminal Cases
The Court also addressed the standing of NGOs in criminal matters. It clarified that while a third party cannot generally intervene without the accused’s consent (as it violates principles of agency), an NGO can facilitate the filing of a bail application through a panel advocate for legal aid purposes. This aligns with the constitutional scheme of providing legal aid under Articles 21 and 39-A.
In this case, the Court accepted the Vakalatnama filed by Ms. Rajpoot, which was duly executed by the appellant and verified by jail authorities, ruling that there was no plausible reason not to hear the bail application on merits.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Smt. Manorama Shukla, was convicted under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated August 6, 2021, sentenced her to life imprisonment. The case originated from Case Crime No. 467 of 2013 at Police Station Aliganj, Lucknow. Her first bail application had been rejected on September 14, 2022.
Arguments on Bail
Appellant’s Submissions: Ms. Jyoti Rajpoot argued that the appellant had already undergone a sentence of approximately 12 years, 6 months, and 13 days (including remission) as of June 8, 2025.
- She relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Saudan Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2022) regarding long incarceration.
- She submitted that as the mother-in-law, there was no direct evidence, eye-witness account, or last-seen evidence against her.
- The conviction relied on the presumption that the death occurred in the matrimonial home, despite the appellant claiming she was unaware of the dispute between her son and the deceased.
State’s Submissions: Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A., opposed the bail, arguing that the appellant, being the mother-in-law, failed to explain the mysterious death of her daughter-in-law in the matrimonial home. She contended that the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act was correctly applied.
Court’s Decision
The Court allowed the second bail application, primarily considering the appellant’s gender and the substantial period of incarceration (about 13 years with remission).
The Bench observed:
“…considering the fact that the present appellant/applicant is a lady, She is in jail for about 13 years including the period of remission… this is a case where no eye witness account or last seen evidence, even there is no direct evidence and the present appellant has been convicted, as the presumption has been drawn against her under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act…”
Direction on Legal Fees
Acknowledging the pro bono service rendered by the young counsel, Ms. Jyoti Rajpoot, the Court directed the High Court Legal Services Committee to pay her Rs. 11,000/- as a token of appreciation. The Court noted she had worked in a capacity “akin to Amicus Curiae” to aid a helpless woman.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt. Manorama Shukla vs. State of U.P.
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1283 of 2021
- Coram: Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
- Counsel for Appellant: Ms. Jyoti Rajpoot
- Counsel for Respondent: Ms. Meera Tripathi, A.G.A.
