3 bail pleas in 10 months: Allahabad High Court fines lawyer Rs 2,000 over ‘forum shopping’ in POCSO case

The Allahabad High Court also deprecated the conduct of the accused in seeking an adjournment when the court started pronouncing its order after the completion of arguments.

“After completion of arguments, when the Court started pronouncing its order, the counsel for the applicant sought an adjournment. The attitude shown by counsel during the hearing of this bail application is deprecated. While such conduct warrants contempt proceedings, this Court refrains therefrom and instead imposes costs of Rs 2,000,” it ordered.

Third bail plea rejected

• The counsel for the accused filed the third bail application before the Allahabad High Court in a case registered under various sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and under the POCSO Act.
• The court had rejected two bail pleas of the accused last year.
• The counsel for the applicant pointed to a land dispute between the parties at the time of the alleged incident, rendering it a case of false implication.
• As a new ground, the counsel argued that no injury was found on the body parts of the survivor.
• It was contended that the accused had been languishing in jail since November 2024, with no criminal history.
• During the earlier proceedings, the Allahabad High Court had called for a report regarding the status of the trial and in compliance thereof, a report was submitted by the trial court.
• According to the said report, the court found that eight witnesses had been examined and the trial was at its conclusive end.

• Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the court noted that bail should not normally be granted to the accused after the charge has been framed.
• The Supreme Court in the case of X vs State of Rajasthan & Anr reported in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused, it observed.
• Bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed, the Allahabad High Court noted.
• Considering the facts and circumstances, submissions by learned counsel, the aforesaid judgement of the Supreme Court and taking into consideration the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end, the court rejected the third bail plea of the accused.
• Before parting with the case, the Allahabad High Court directed an expedited trial of the case pending before the trial court.

Advocates not appearing in cases is ‘bench hunting’

In another case, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that advocates not appearing in listed cases amounts to professional misconduct and is tantamount to bench hunting.

Justice Krishan Pahal made the observation after the counsel for an accused in a POCSO case had failed to appear repeatedly. Taking exception to the repeated absence, the court observed that such conduct was becoming common in several cases, and dismissed the bail plea.

“Advocates are not appearing in majority of listed cases that too on multiple dates. Non-appearance of the counsel for the applicant amounts to professional misconduct. It also tantamount to bench hunting or forum shopping,” the Allahabad High Court remarked in its order dated April 15.