Back
Lawyer's Illness Slip Backfires: Allahabad HC Imposes Rs 20,000 Fine in Bail Rejection Drama
In a scathing rebuke highlighting the burdens on India's judicial system, the dismissed pleas from Arun Kumar Yadav and Shiv Prakash Singh in a Varanasi forgery case, while imposing a hefty Rs 20,000 cost on their counsel for attempting to "deceive the Court." Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary delivered the order on , in twin applications under , underscoring the duty of lawyers as .
Roots in a Bitter Cousin Rivalry Over College Control
The saga traces back to a family feud over the management of in Varanasi. Shiv Prakash Singh's father established the institution through the society. His cousin, the informant (opposite party no. 2), allegedly shifted control to his via a resolution, sparking years of litigation.
Key milestones: - Society's claim upheld by authorities in a letter. - Informant's writ (Writ-C No. 6267/2021) led to Vice-Chancellor's order favoring the society. - Father's FIR (Case Crime No. 509/ ) under ; informant granted bail in . - Failed challenges by informant culminated in the disputed FIR (Case Crime No. 411/2020) under at —alleging cheating and forgery by applicants.
Applicants portrayed the FIR as vengeance after prior protections, including a Division Bench stay on coercion ( ) and no-coercive order ( ).
Bail Seekers' Plea: Vengeance, No Evidence; Prosecution Counters with Prior Shield
Arun Kumar Yadav and Shiv Prakash Singh sought , claiming innocence, no credible evidence, and apprehension of arrest despite undertakings to cooperate. They highlighted parallel proceedings where courts had shielded them.
Opposition from State AGA and informant counsel was fierce. Critically, they revealed: - Applicants had challenged the charge-sheet (filed ) via application (No. 5350/2025), securing an interim stay on proceedings from a coordinate bench on —eliminating arrest fears. - Counsel sent an "illness slip" that day but appeared in Special Appeal Defective No. 66/2026 before the Chief Justice, assisting senior counsel (evidence: appearance slip produced in court).
No precedents were cited, but the court relied on factual inconsistencies and procedural history.
The Deception Unravels: From Absenteeism to Double-Dipping
Justice Chowdhary noted repeated adjournments or absences since filing in
, wasting court time amid mounting pendency. The illness slip clinched it:
"Sri
... has sent his illness slip, whereas he has put in appearance in [another case]. Learned counsel for the applicants made no effort to apprise the Court of the correct status of the matter."
This, coupled with nondisclosure of the interim stay, was deemed an
"
that amounts to
."
Court's Verdict: Bail Booted, Costs for Contempt of Time
Para 7
:
"Accordingly
applications... are rejected."
The interim protection rendered bail redundant. On costs ( Para 8-9 ): Rs 20,000 imposed on counsel (Roll No. A/J-0185/2012), payable to within one month, or face Bar Council referral.
Implications : Reinforces zero tolerance for counsel misconduct, protecting judicial efficiency. As LiveLaw reports ( ), it warns lawyers: prioritize candor over tactics in an overburdened system. Future filers must disclose all protections to avoid similar fates.
Key Observations from the Bench
"The conduct of the counsel for the applicants demonstrate that the counsel for the applicants makes anthat amounts toespecially when numbers of fresh cases are being filed everyday and the Courts are already overburdened with the pendency of cases."
"Being, it is the duty of the learned counsel to assist the Court with true facts so as to save the precious time of the Court. By the conduct offered by learned counsel for the applicants, precious time of the Court has been wasted in the instant case."
"Since interim protection has already been granted in favour of the applicants vide order dated 18.09.2025... therefore there isof the applicants."
This ruling serves as a timely reminder: justice delayed by deception benefits no one.
