Safiya Malik

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke issued a show-cause notice to an advocate who continued appearing before the court despite a subsisting criminal contempt conviction, noting that his conduct during hearing of a bail application reflected a deliberate attempt to intimidate and influence the court. The bench observed that the lawyer's submissions lacked the restraint, decorum, and ethical standards expected of an officer of the court. The bail application of the accused, who was a passenger in a vehicle allegedly used to assault a police constable on duty, was dismissed.

The matter arose from a bail application filed by an accused arrested on 5 February 2026 in connection with a criminal case registered by Police Station Padav, District Guna. The prosecution alleged offences under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in relation to an incident that occurred during a late-night traffic management deployment. Police personnel had been stationed near DB Mall during a security arrangement for an NSG mock drill.

Also Read: S.133 Contract Act | Guarantor's Liability Capped At Originally Sanctioned Loan Amount; Surety Not Bound By Borrower's Excess Withdrawals Made Without Consent : Supreme Court

According to the prosecution, a vehicle approached the checkpoint in a rash manner. When the complainant constable signalled the car to stop and placed a stopper, the driver allegedly accelerated the vehicle to evade checking and struck the constable. It was alleged that the driver and other occupants pulled the constable into the vehicle area, threw him onto the bonnet, and dragged him for a distance before sudden braking caused him to fall onto the road and sustain injuries.

Police later intercepted the vehicle after a wireless alert. The occupants were apprehended and the injured constable was taken to hospital. During investigation, the police prepared a site map, recorded witness statements, seized the vehicle, and arrested the accused persons.

The applicant contended that he was only a passenger and had not driven the vehicle. He argued that no specific overt act demonstrating common intention had been attributed to him and that continued custody was unnecessary as the vehicle had already been seized and witness statements recorded. The State opposed the application, asserting that the occupants acted collectively in obstructing a public servant performing official duties and that the incident involved a deliberate assault on a police officer.

The court addressed the gravity of the allegations against the accused, observing that the prosecution case disclosed that the complainant, a police constable, was discharging his official duties at the time of the incident. The court recorded that "the manner in which the incident is alleged to have occurred prima facie indicated a concerted act on the part of the occupants of the vehicle to obstruct and deterred a public servant from performing his official duty."

On the question of the applicant's individual role, the court stated that "the statements recorded during investigation and the circumstances surrounding the incident do not persuade this Court to hold that the applicant's role is so minimal as to entitle him to the discretionary relief of bail." It further observed that "the gravity of the offence, the nature of the allegations, and the impact of such conduct on public administration, particularly when it involves an attack on a police personnel on duty, weigh against the applicant."

Concerning the reliance placed by the applicant's counsel on the Supreme Court's decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the court observed that the said judgment "does not lay down an absolute proposition that bail must be granted in every case where investigation is substantially complete, irrespective of the gravity and surrounding circumstances." The court noted that the facts of the present case stood on a distinct footing, as "the allegations herein disclose a prima facie deliberate and concerted act resulting in an assault upon a police constable who was discharging official duties in connection with a sensitive security arrangement."

Turning to the conduct of the advocate appearing for the applicant, the court recorded that during the hearing, he "repeatedly attempted to divert the proceedings from the bail issues, raised matters already concluded by judicial orders, and made insinuatory and provocative remarks." The court further stated that "his submissions were argumentative beyond permissible limits and bordered on defiance of judicial discipline" and that he "attempted to introduce personal vindication, challenge settled findings, and focus on extraneous matters rather than the merits of the application."

On the standard of conduct expected from members of the bar, the court observed that "the tone, tenor, and manner of submissions reflected a deliberate attempt to intimidate and influence the Court, rather than to responsibly argue the merits of the case. His submissions exhibited a lack of restraint, decorum, and adherence to the ethical standards expected of an officer of the Court. The Court notes that advocacy carries with it not merely the right to argue zealously on behalf of a client, but also a concomitant duty to uphold the dignity, authority, and decorum of the judicial process. In this instance, the conduct of Shri Bhadauria fell short of these responsibilities."

Regarding the advocate's continued appearance despite a subsisting contempt conviction, the court stated that "the combination of a subsisting conviction for criminal contempt, lack of any purgation, and the aggressive, distracting, and defiant conduct displayed by Shri Bhadauria during the hearing, demonstrates not only a violation of Rule 16 of the Rules, 2012 but also a disregard for the authority and majesty of the Court." The court further observed that "such conduct tends to undermine the institutional discipline and the orderly administration of justice."

The Court recorded that “considering the seriousness of the accusations, the manner of commission of the offence, and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.” The Court consequently directed that “in view of the serious nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offence, and the ongoing investigation, the bail application of Munendra Singh is hereby dismissed.”

Also Read: 'Serious Penal Provisions Cannot Be Invoked As Instruments Of Retaliation In Personal Discord': MP High Court Quashes Sexual Harassment FIR Against Govt Employee Citing Doubtful Allegations

“The Office is directed to issue a show-cause notice to Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria, calling upon him to explain under what authority he was/is appearing, acting, and pleading before this Court in the absence of compliance with Rule 16 of the Rules, 2012.”

“The Office is further directed to issue notice to the State Bar Council to inform this Court of the steps taken, if any, pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 26.04.2024, as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and if not taken, action would be taken as may be warranted in accordance with law. Both notices shall be issued within seven days from 26.02.2026 and shall be made returnable within four weeks thereafter. List the matter in the week commencing 06.04.2026 for further consideration under the head ‘Direction’.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria, Advocate

For the Respondents: Shri Mohit Shivhare, Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Munendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2026: MPHC-GWL:6777
Case Number: Misc. Criminal Case No. 7860 of 2026
Bench: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke