‘Tantamount to bench hunting’: Allahabad High Court raps lawyers over repeated absences, junks POCSO bail plea
(Image generated using AI)Allahabad High Court news: The Allahabad High Court recently observed that advocates not appearing in listed cases amounts to professional misconduct and is also tantamount to bench hunting. Justice Krishan Pahal made the observation after the counsel for an accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 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.
Justice Krishan Pahal made the observation while hearing the accused’s bail plea on April 15.“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.
Repeated absence
The court noted that the bail application, filed on February 6, 2025, had come up on multiple dates: November 28, 2025, January 12, 2026, March 17, 2026, and again on the date of the hearing, but no one appeared on behalf of the applicant to press the matter. Even when the case was taken up in the revised list, counsel remained absent. The Allahabad High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v Gopal, where it had categorically held that courts shall not grant adjournments in a routine manner. It was also opined that the courts have to be diligent and take timely action to usher in an efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in the rule of law, the Allahabad High Court said while referring to the top court’s ruling. The court emphasised that mere pendency of a bail application does not accrue any right in favour of an applicant, nor can a case be allowed to remain pending indefinitely under the “cloak of pendency”. It further added that an applicant cannot be permitted to “dilute the stream of justice” by repeatedly remaining absent without reasonable explanation, calling such conduct a “blatant abuse of process of law”.
Discussion (0)