Nithyakalyani Narayanan. V
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court condemns two Advocates and their clients for misleading the Court in a bail case. The court remarked that the case shows the degradation of the legal profession and how Advocates were providing result-oriented services to please clients without thinking of their own careers.
“The level of misleading the Court also reached the zenith. It’s a matter of serious concern. Whom to believe is a big question. Unfortunately, the newly entered junior lawyers are also involved in such practice by their seniors,” Justice S G Mehra said.
The case dealt with a bail request against the accused under Section 299 and Section 307 of the IPC. The sections dealt with culpable homicide and attempt to murder respectively.
The advocate of the complainant appeared before the court on June 14th, claiming that he was instructed to appear for the complainant. He was granted time to make his submissions and the case was listed for hearing on June 22. The Advocate later filed an affidavit for an eyewitness and not for the complainant. The eyewitness did not object to granting bail to the complainant in the affidavit. The Court noted that the lawyer had received the affidavit in advance; therefore, this was an attempt to mislead the Court by the Advocates to get the bail.
Though the Advocate explained that it was an unintentional mistake, Justice Mehra held that the facts did not support him and referred the matter to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to take action against them for misconduct and for misleading the Court.
The Bench opined that the misconduct was enough to reject the bail request. Also, the accused did not deserve bail on merit either hence, the plea was dismissed.
Both Advocates and the office bearers of the Bar Association appeared before the Judge and apologised. They also requested the Court to expunge its remarks and not refer the matter to BCMG. Considering this apology and the future of the junior lawyer, the Court recalled its order of inquiry and action for misconduct. However, the bench retained its earlier observations on record and attached the written apology of the Advocates in a sealed packet.
Advocate Abhaysinh K Bhosle appeared for the bail applicant. Assistant Public Prosecutor VN Patil-Jadhav appeared for the respondent. State Advocate Shardul G Shinde appeared for the complainant to assist APP Patil-Jadhav.
Name of the Case: Lakhan Prasad Misal v. The State of Maharashtra
Bench: Justice S G Mehra