"Allegations Of Bias Do Not Constitute Legal Argument | Allahabad High Court Releases Bail Application, Refers Advocate To Contempt Bench And Bar Council"
Kiran Raj
The High Court of Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Siddharth released a pending bail application to be placed before the appropriate court after noting serious allegations made against the court by counsel representing the informant. The court directed that the records be placed before a Division Bench for consideration of criminal contempt proceedings against the said counsel. Further, the registry was instructed to forward relevant documents to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for an inquiry into whether the counsel's conduct adhered to professional ethical standards. The bail application itself was not adjudicated upon; instead, it was ordered to be presented before another court upon nomination by the Chief Justice.
The matter concerned a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code by an individual accused of murder, rioting, and various offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. The incident, as narrated in the FIR, allegedly took place on 1 December 2023, when multiple co-accused individuals, including the applicant, are said to have arrived at the informant’s residence armed with lathis, country-made pistols, rifles, and a hockey stick. An altercation followed, culminating in gunfire that resulted in the death of the informant’s daughter and injuries to other family members.
According to the FIR, Haribhan @ Monu @ Ramakant (the applicant), along with several co-accused, arrived at the informant’s house and began using abusive language. When the informant objected, the co-accused allegedly exhorted each other to kill. Following this, the assailants allegedly fired shots with the intent to kill. The informant’s daughter, Julie, sustained a gunshot wound and succumbed to her injuries while being transported to the hospital. The informant’s wife, Bittan Devi, and another daughter, Poonam, were reportedly assaulted during the attack.
The applicant initially moved a bail application before the District and Sessions Judge in Mainpuri, which was rejected on 1 April 2024. Subsequently, the applicant approached the High Court. One of the co-accused, Ratnesh @ Ranvijay Singh, who was assigned a similar role and weapon, had already been granted bail, and the applicant relied on this parity to argue for his own release.
Senior Advocate Kamal Krishna appeared on behalf of the applicant and contended that although multiple individuals were alleged to have fired weapons, the deceased had only one firearm injury. He argued that the applicant was assigned a general role and that the case lacked specificity regarding who fired the fatal shot.
Despite multiple hearing dates being fixed between April and May 2025, the counsel for the informant either did not appear or sought adjournments. When the matter was finally heard peremptorily on 16 May 2025, the counsel for the informant, Advocate Harish Chandra Shukla, was granted liberty to submit his arguments in writing due to repeated delays.
On 17 May 2025, the counsel for the informant submitted written arguments. The content of this submission included several statements alleging bias on the part of the presiding judge and accusing the court of not acting with honesty. The written submission did not provide specific legal rebuttals to the contentions raised by the applicant’s counsel but rather criticized the court's demeanor and alleged conduct during oral hearings.
The informant’s counsel referred to various legal provisions, including Article 21 of the Constitution of India and cited Supreme Court jurisprudence, asserting that the victim's right to life had been undermined. Nevertheless, the court noted that the submissions did not address the bail applicant's arguments directly or substantively.
The High Court took cognizance of these written remarks and proceeded to assess their appropriateness under applicable legal and professional standards.
The court recorded: "A perusal of the aforesaid written submissions submitted by the learned counsel for the informant shows that he has not given any specific reply to the arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant. Rather, he has made allegations against the court that court is biased and dishonest."
The judgment further stated: "This court finds that the allegations made by learned counsel for the informant against court require consideration by Division Bench of the court, hearing criminal contempt matters."
Regarding the procedural history, the court noted: "This bail application is pending since 20.04.2024. The informant earlier engaged Sri Narendra Singh, Advocate as his counsel who avoided hearing of the application from 24.04.2024 to 07.05.2025." It added that when the matter was scheduled for final hearing, the newly appointed counsel continued to seek further adjournments despite being given sufficient opportunity.
The court recounted: "When this court on the request of counsel for the applicant directed the application to be listed peremptorily on 12.05.2025, Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, Advocate appeared on 12.05.2025 and filed his vakalatnama on behalf of informant. He stated that he is not prepared and the matter was adjourned on his request for 16.05.2025."
It added: "On 16.05.2025 again the counsel for informant was not willing to argue and reply to the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant as stated earlier hence the order was reserved granting liberty to the counsel for the informant to file written submissions, if any."
Upon receiving the written arguments, the court remarked: "After considering the written submissions of the learned Counsel for the informant and his conduct, this court finds that the allegations made by learned counsel for the informant against court require consideration by Division Bench of the court, hearing criminal contempt matters."
In reference to the ethical responsibilities of legal practitioners, the court further noted: "The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh is also directed to consider the conduct of the counsel for the informant and decide, after hearing him, whether conduct of Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, Advocate is in consonance with code of conduct for the lawyers in court."
On procedural integrity, the judgment recorded: "Written submissions of counsel for the informant, Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, are kept in envelope in the court file. Office will not misplace the same from the file."
The court directed that the registry place the record of the bail application before an appropriate Division Bench of the court for the initiation of proceedings of criminal contempt under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. This directive was issued in view of the serious allegations levelled against the presiding judge by the counsel for the informant.
The court ordered: "The registry of this court is directed to place the record of this case before the appropriate court for initiating proceedings of criminal contempt against Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, Advocate as per section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act within a week."
In a parallel directive, the court mandated the registry to submit the relevant documents to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh so that an inquiry may be conducted to determine whether the conduct of the informant's counsel conformed with the expected professional standards.
It directed: "The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh is also directed to consider the conduct of the counsel for the informant and decide, after hearing him, whether conduct of Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, Advocate is in consonance with code of conduct for the lawyers in court."
To preserve the evidence, the judgment recorded: "Written submissions of counsel for the informant, Sri Harish Chandra Shukla, are kept in envelope in the court file. Office will not misplace the same from the file."
Finally, with regard to the bail application, the court ordered its release and directed that it be placed before an appropriate court for further consideration upon obtaining nomination from the Chief Justice.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Rakesh Kumar Rathore, Sanjeev Kumar, Shashi Kumar Mishra, Advocates
For the Respondents: G.A., Narendra Singh, Harish Chandra Shukla, Advocates
Case Title: Haribhan Alias Monu Alias Ramakant v. State of U.P.
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15885 of 2024
Bench: Justice Siddharth
[Read/Download order]
