Introduction:

In a recent hearing, the Supreme Court expressed shock over an advocate’s refusal to argue before the Allahabad High Court in a criminal appeal, resulting in the cancellation of interim bail granted to the accused. The matter involved the conviction of the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Upon the advocate’s refusal to present arguments, the High Court annulled the bail, prompting the case to reach the Supreme Court.

Arguments of Both Sides:  

The crux of the issue lay in the advocate’s refusal to argue on behalf of the appellants before the High Court, leading to the cancellation of interim bail. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, expressed shock at the advocate’s behavior, considering it a matter of potential criminal contempt. The Court opined that the cancellation of bail due to the counsel’s default was unjustified, suggesting that appointing an amicus curiae for the accused would have been a more suitable course of action.

Court’s Judgement:

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the advocate’s conduct as potentially amounting to criminal contempt, issued a show cause notice for the advocate’s appearance before the Court. Additionally, it restored the interim bail order passed by the High Court, emphasizing that penalizing the appellants due to the advocate’s default was inappropriate. The Court highlighted the option of appointing amicus curiae in cases where the accused’s counsel seeks unwarranted adjournments during the appeal against conviction, ensuring a fair hearing for the accused.