‘Blaming lawyer without taking action not believable’: Delhi High Court denied pre-arrest bail to woman in dowry death case
The Delhi High Court was hearing the anticipatory bail application of a woman who claimed that her previous application was withdrawn by her counsel without instruction.
The Delhi High Court noted that accepting such a submission that the previous counsel of the woman withdrew the anticipatory bail application without instructions would be tantamount to condemning the previous counsel unheard. (AI-generated image)
The Delhi High Court recently took a stern view of litigants who attempt to bypass judicial orders by blaming their previous lawyers and denied anticipatory bail to a woman accused, a relative of the victim’s husband and linked to her dowry death case.
Justice Girish Kathpalia ruled that an accused cannot be believed if they claim their lawyer acted without instructions but fail to take any legal action against that lawyer for alleged professional misconduct.
The Delhi High Court was hearing the plea of the woman charged under Section 498 A (cruelty with a married woman by their husband or his relatives) and 304 B (dowry death) of the IPC.
“It has been repeatedly held that where the litigant does not take any action against the counsel for alleged professional misconduct, the litigant cannot be believed. For accepting such a submission that the previous counsel withdrew the anticipatory bail application without instructions would be tantamount to condemning the previous counsel unheard,” the Delhi High Court said in its March 28 order.
Justice Girish Kathpalia said that he is unable to accept the accused’s submission that the earlier anticipatory bail application was withdrawn by the accused’s counsel without instructions.
‘Can’t believe accused’s argument’
The high court pointed out that accepting such a submission that the previous counsel of the woman withdrew the anticipatory bail application without instructions would be tantamount to condemning the previous counsel unheard.
The court said it was unable to accept the submission that the earlier anticipatory bail application had been withdrawn by the accused’s counsel without instructions.
It was observed that there was no reason for counsel to make a false statement regarding instructions before the Court.
The Delhi High Court also noted that no action had been taken by the accused against the said counsel.
The court further recorded that the accused attempted to argue that the earlier anticipatory bail application had remained pending before another bench for a long time, and therefore, the present application should also have been listed before the same bench.
It was noted that the judge-in-charge concerned had assigned the matter to this bench, keeping in view the earlier order dated February 13, 2026.
The high court further pointed out that there was not even a whisper of a request before the judge-in-charge to list the matter before the earlier bench.
It was also observed that the earlier application had not been finally heard by the other bench and had, in fact, been transferred to this bench as part of a batch of 179 pending bail applications.
The high court added that this was also the reason why, on February 13, 2026, the matter was passed over to await counsel instead of being adjourned.
‘Counsel’s act’
Assistant public prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal pointed out that by an order of February 13 passed by this bench, the counsel for the accused had sought permission to withdraw the earlier anticipatory bail so that the accused would surrender and seek regular bail.
Accordingly, the said anticipatory bail application was dismissed as withdrawn.
Thereafter, instead of surrendering, the accused filed yet another anticipatory bail application, which is the present one, and the judge in charge concerned transferred the application to this bench.
On the other hand, appearing for the woman, advocate Vimal Tyagi submitted that the earlier anticipatory bail application was withdrawn by the erstwhile counsel without instructions.
Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape.
Expertise
Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen.
Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on:
Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.
Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy.
Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More
Justice Girish Kathpalia said that he is unable to accept the accused’s submission that the earlier anticipatory bail application was withdrawn by the accused’s counsel without instructions.