Called in sick, caught by judge: Allahabad High Court imposes Rs 20k fine on lawyer for ‘deception’

“The conduct of the counsel for the applicants demonstrate that the counsel for the applicants makes an attempt to deceive the Court that amounts to interference with the administration of justice especially when numbers of fresh cases are being filed everyday and the Courts are already overburdened with the pendency of cases,” it noted in the order dated March 24.

‘Wasted court’s time’

The high court observed that since interim protection had already been granted to the applicants, there was no apprehension of their arrest, and accordingly, their anticipatory bail applications were rejected.

The court noted that the applicants had filed the present anticipatory bail pleas as early as the first quarter of 2025, but a perusal of the order sheets showed that since filing, the matters were repeatedly adjourned either at the request of their counsel or due to his absence, with appearances made only on a few dates.

During the pendency of the applications, the applicants’ counsel had also moved an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, pursuant to which interim protection was granted, further negating any fear of arrest.

The Court further took serious note of the conduct of the applicants’ counsel, observing that on the date of hearing, he submitted an illness slip while appearing in another case.

The Court remarked that no effort was made to apprise it of the correct status of the matter, resulting in a waste of valuable judicial time.

In view of this conduct, the court imposed costs of Rs 20,000 on the counsel, directing that the amount be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within one month.

It added that failure to deposit the cost within the stipulated period would result in the matter being referred to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for appropriate action.

Anticipatory bail hearing

The Allahabad High Court was hearing the anticipatory bail plea in connection with a case that arose out of a long-standing dispute over the management of a degree college in Varanasi, involving rival claims between a society and a trust.

The case had been registered under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc), 468 (forgery for cheating) and 471 (using a forged document as genuine).

During the hearing, the counsel for the informant in the case pointed out to the Allahabad High Court that the applicants’ counsel sent an illness slip but at the same time, he had put in an appearance before the court of the Chief Justice.

The counsel for the informant also argued that on one hand, the instant anticipatory bail applications were filed before the court, whereas on the other hand, after submission of chargesheet in the aforesaid case, the applicant challenged the chargesheet by filing an application under BNSS Section 528.

The coordinate bench had stayed the further proceedings against the applicants till the next date of listing.

The counsel further argued that once the proceedings against the applicants have been stayed, there was no apprehension of arrest of the applicants.