In a recent development within the precincts of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Krishan Pahal presided over the dismissal of an anticipatory bail application, thereby shedding light on concerns pertaining to prolonged pendency and the non-appearance of legal counsels in judicial proceedings.
The case in question involved an application filed by the petitioner, Jhinnu, against the State of Uttar Pradesh and two other respondents. However, notwithstanding the listing of the case, the absence of the petitioner’s counsel, Dhirendra Pratap Singh, gave rise to apprehensions concerning potential professional misconduct and the misuse of the judicial process.
“Non-appearance of the counsel for the applicant amounts to professional misconduct,” noted Justice Pahal, highlighting the seriousness of the matter. The judge emphasized that the mere pendency of a bail application does not grant any inherent right to the applicant, condemning the practice of exploiting procedural delays for personal advantage.
“It cannot be allowed to swing years together in the cloak of
pendency,” remarked Justice Pahal, expressing disdain towards the misuse of legal procedures.
The jurist reiterated the legislative intent underpinning the establishment of a temporal framework for the adjudication of anticipatory bail petitions, underscoring the imperative to forestall their potential abuse.
Drawing upon legal precedents, notably the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, Justice Pahal underscored the judiciary’s duty to expedite legal proceedings and mitigate unwarranted delays. The adjudicator emphasized the imperative of active engagement in legal proceedings, censuring any endeavors aimed at circumventing investigation or protracting the administration of justice.
In accordance with the court’s observations, the trial pertinent to the matter had already reached its conclusion, rendering the anticipatory bail petition moot. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as ineffectual, thereby nullifying any interim safeguard previously extended to the petitioner.
“While the applicant retains the liberty to pursue regular application before the court concerned if required,” concluded Justice Pahal, ensuring the applicant’s legal recourse despite the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application.