"Caused Disturbance & Disrupted Proceedings": Allahabad HC Imposes ₹10k Fine On Advocate Who Continued To Argue Even After Order Was Passed In Bail Plea

The Allahabad High Court has levied a fine of Rs. 10,000 on an advocate for his disruptive behaviour during a bail hearing after the court had already rejected the bail plea.

Depreciating the Advocate's attitude, the Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal ordered, "A cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed to be deposited in the account of High Court Legal Services Authority, within a period of 15 days from today."

The Bench criticized the advocate's conduct as tantamount to criminal contempt of court, stating that it undermined the authority and decorum of the judicial process.

The Court observed, "The counsel for the applicant not only continued to argue the case after the order had been passed in open Court but also caused a disturbance and disrupted the proceedings. This behavior is considered criminal contempt of Court, as it undermines the authority and decorum of the judicial process, but this Court is desisting from initiating contempt proceedings. No litigant is permitted to interfere in the proceedings of the Court after passing of the order."

However, the Court refrained from initiating contempt proceedings, emphasizing the dual responsibilities of advocates in maintaining a respectful environment while representing their clients. "Justice underscores the dual responsibilities of Advocates in a Court of Law. While they must diligently represent and look after the interests of their clients, they also have an onerous duty to maintain a respectful and conducive environment in the courtroom. Advocates should assist the Court rather than cause disruptions, ensuring that the proceedings are orderly and respectful, which ultimately upholds the dignity of the judicial process," the Bench said.

The Court was hearing the bail application of an accused involved in a case where he allegedly blackmailed and raped a woman, recording compromising videos to extort money from her. The prosecution presented evidence including recovered videos for forensic analysis, while the defense argued against the veracity of the claims and the absence of incriminating forensic reports.

Following its assessment, the Court denied bail to the applicant and instructed the trial court to expedite the pending case. "After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the video has been recovered from the mobile of the applicant and has been sent for forensic analysis, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: Mohan v. State of UP [Neutral Citation No-2024:AHC:107063]

Appearance:-

Applicant: Advocate Arun Kumar Tripathi

Respondent: R.P. Patel (AGA)

Click here to read/download the Order