The Allahabad High Court expressed concern on Tuesday over the frequent absence of advocates in a majority of listed cases, especially on multiple dates. The court emphasized that when a counsel fails to appear for their client, it not only constitutes professional misconduct but also resembles bench hunting or forum shopping.

In dismissing an anticipatory bail plea filed by an accused in 2019 as infructuous, Justice Krishan Pahal's bench noted the absence of both the applicant and his counsel during the court hearings.

The Court took exception to this situation, emphasizing that the mere pendency of a bail application does not grant any rights to the applicant. It asserted that such petitions cannot be allowed to linger for years under the guise of being pending.

“The applicant cannot be permitted to dilute the stream of justice by repeatedly remaining absent from judicial proceedings without any reasonable explanation. Absence of any reason for non-appearance is blatant abuse of process of law, even though the order is available and accessible to all on the website of the High Court,” the Court added.

Additionally, the Court referenced Sub-Section 5 of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code [Uttar Pradesh Act 4 of 2019, s. 2 (w.e.f. 01.06.2019)], highlighting that anticipatory bail applications should be conclusively resolved within thirty days from the date of submission.

Furthermore, noting the possibility that the applicant might be exploiting the ongoing status of the application to avoid participating in the investigation, the Court dismissed the petition as moot.

Case title - Jhinnu vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024