The Allahabad High Court has taken a stern view of misconduct, imposing a Rs.20,000 cost on a lawyer for “attempting to deceive the Court.” The bench found he filed an illness slip while appearing in another courtroom today.
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has taken a serious view of professional misconduct by an advocate, imposing a cost of Rs.20,000 for “attempting to deceive the Court.”
The bench found that the lawyer submitted an illness slip to obtain an adjournment in one courtroom while he was simultaneously present in another.
The Court consequently dismissed the anticipatory bail petitions of Arun Kumar Yadav and Shiv Prakash Singh, noting both already enjoyed protection from a different bench.
The matter involved two anticipatory bail petitions filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS): No. 2375 of 2025 by Arun Kumar Yadav and No. 2551 of 2025 by Shiv Prakash Singh. Both sought protection from arrest in Case Crime No. 411 of 2020 at Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi, where charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code were framed.
The dispute stems from a long-running disagreement over the management of Jay Prakash Degree College, Umraha. The applicants maintained the college was managed by Jay Prakash Smarak Sewa Samiti, while the informant (opposite party no. 2) allegedly tried to transfer control to a private trust. The parties’ conflict has spawned a series of litigation, including writ petitions and multiple FIRs.
The applicants claimed the present FIR was lodged out of “ill-will” and to “wreck vengeance” after the informant failed to obtain relief elsewhere.
The applicants asserted their innocence and said they faced the threat of arrest despite an absence of “credible evidence.”
They pointed out that a coordinate bench had already passed an order dated January 22, 2025, granting protection to Shiv Prakash Singh.
The informant’s counsel, however, presented a different narrative. He noted that while the anticipatory bail petitions were pending, Arun Kumar Yadav had challenged the charge sheet (dated December 5, 2024) via an application under Section 528 BNSS (No. 5350 of 2025), and a coordinate bench had stayed further proceedings on September 18, 2025.
The informant’s lawyer also accused the applicants’ advocate, Sri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, of professional misconduct. He produced an appearance slip indicating that Srivastava had submitted an “illness slip” in Court No. 71 to obtain an adjournment, yet was simultaneously assisting a Senior Counsel in a Special Appeal before the Chief Justice’s Court.
Justice Gautam Chowdhary held that the principal reason for refusing anticipatory bail was the absence of any real “apprehension of arrest.”
The Court observed,
“Since interim protection has already been granted in favour of the applicants vide order dated 18.09.2025 passed in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 5350 of 2025, therefore there is no apprehension of arrest of the applicants.”
The Court expressed serious concern about the advocate’s conduct, noting repeated adjournments since early 2025 owing to his absence or requests, which wasted judicial time.
The judgment stated,
“The conduct of the counsel for the applicants demonstrate that the counsel for the applicants makes an attempt to deceive the Court that amounts to interference with the administration of justice especially when numbers of fresh cases are being filed everyday and the Courts are already overburdened with the pendency of cases.”
The judge stressed that advocates, as officers of the Court, must “assist the Court with true facts so as to save the precious time of the Court.”
Both anticipatory bail applications were dismissed. The Court imposed a cost of Rs.20,000 on Sri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (Advocate Roll No. A/J-0185 of 2012), payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within one month.
Failure to deposit the amount will result in the matter being referred to the Bar Council of U.P. for appropriate action.
The Court also ordered the Registry to inform the concerned lower court and the advocate of the order immediately.
Case Title: Arun Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another (with connected matter)