Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

While taking note of the absence of the advocates in listed cases on multiple dates, the Allahabad High Court held recently that on-appearance of the counsel for the applicant amounts to professional misconduct.

"It also tantamount to bench hunting or forum shopping," the bench of Justice Krishan Pahal said.

The judge emphasised that 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," he added. 

The judge underscored that the absence of any reason for non-appearance is a blatant abuse of the process of law.

Further, Justice Pahal noted that Sub-Section 5 of Section 438 CrPC [Uttar Pradesh Act 4 of 2019, s. 2 (w.e.f. 01.06.2019)] says that the anticipatory bail application be finally disposed of within thirty days of the date of such application.

He also referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022), where it was held that the application for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks.

He said that the limitation period of 30 days for disposal of anticipatory bail application which was provided by the legislature at the time of framing of Section 438 CrPC was put with an intention of avoiding misuse of pendency of anticipatory bail application.

"The applicant may be taking undue advantage of the pendency of the instant application by not participating in the investigation," he asserted.

Therefore, in the case at hand, while taking note of the concerned CJM's report that the trial had been decided in April 2022, the high court dismissed the anticipatory bail application as infructuous.

It also vacated the interim protection granted to the applicant, if there was any, while clarifying that the applicant will be at liberty to move regular application before the court concerned, if so required.

Case Title: Jhinnu v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others