Advocate's Repeated Non-Appearance Is Professional Misconduct, Bench Hunting: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a bail application, stating that the case amounted to a blatant misuse of the judicial process and valuable court time.

The bail application was rejected by the bench of Justice Krishan Pahal after the applicant’s counsel failed to appear for hearings on at least five occasions over the last one and a half years, including the most recent hearing on July 8, 2025.

“Advocates are not appearing in majority of listed cases, that too on multiple dates,” the court observed.

“Non-appearance of the counsel for the applicant amounts to professional misconduct. It also tantamounts to bench hunting or forum shopping,” the judge noted, strongly criticising the absenteeism.

Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal (2021), the high court reiterated that courts should not grant adjournments routinely, as such delays only harm the efficiency and trust in the justice delivery system.

“Mere pendency of the bail application cannot accrue any right in favour of the applicant,” Justice Pahal observed.

Court further noted that the trial in the present case was at a conclusive stage, with the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC already recorded. Despite being listed several times, including on January 31, February 15, March 1, March 6, and April 10, neither the applicant nor her counsel appeared, nor was any reason provided for their absence.

Calling it a misuse of judicial machinery, court declared, “Absence of any reason for non-appearance is blatant abuse of process of law".

Court stressed that "the resources of the court, which include precious judicial time, are scarce and already stretched beyond elastic limits". It added, "Therefore, increasingly, the courts have held that totally unjustified use of judicial time must be curbed and the party so wasting precious judicial resources, must be required to compensate not only the adversary but also the judicial system itself".

Further, court cited a 2008 Allahabad High Court judgment that urged members of the Bar to act responsibly and refuse participation in bogus or delay-inducing proceedings. “Frivolous litigation only adds burden on the Court and deprives real litigants from the shower of justice,” the earlier judgment had said.

Court opined that in the present matter, it appeared that the applicant had lost interest in pursuing it. Therefore, terming the pending application “infructuous,” it rejected the plea.

Case Title: Smt. Pooja vs. State of UP

Download judgment here