"Such brazen attempt on the part of the member of the bar would not only tarnish the image of the judiciary but would also percolate wrong signal to the litigants as well as the society", the Court added.
An advocate was the subject of remonstrance in an Order passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court yesterday.
The Bench, consisting Justices Tirtankar Ghosh and Harish Tandon, rebuked the advocate for his repeated applications to the High Court for the grant of bail to his client (In re Affiruddin Sk v. State).
These pleas were moved despite the Court’s direction on April 23 that the bail application be listed after the resumption of the Court’s ordinary functioning.
“It is alarming and shocking state of affairs that the member of the bar taking advantage of the matter being taken on a virtual platform filed the application for bail when being alive of the fact that an earlier application for bail in connection with the same offence and the same police station case number was directed to be listed before this Court after resumption of normalcy in its functioning.”
The Bench rejected the advocate’s reason for the repeated applications describing the tendered reason as a “lame excuse."
The advocate had told the Court that a certificate acknowledging receipt of the application had not been issued to him, as a result of which several applications were posted on the email of the Registrar-General.
The Court in its order notes that the same advocate had appeared in the previous proceedings on April 23 as well.
When the advocate prayed for permission to withdraw the bail application that is the subject of yesterday’s order, the Bench instead rejected the application, imposing costs to the tune of Rupees 50,000 on the advocate.
In so doing the Bench remarked,
“The member of the bar has not only the onerous duty to his client but have more responsible duty towards the Court. He cannot take the Court for a ride nor any attempt in this behalf can be compromised by the Bench. Such brazen attempt on the part of the member of the bar would not only tarnish the image of the judiciary but would also percolate wrong signal to the litigants as well as the society.”
Calcutta High Court
