From Costs to Clean Slate: Allahabad HC Forgives Advocate's 'Illness Slip' Slip-Up After Apology

In a tale of courtroom drama blending bail pleas, family feuds over college management, and a counsel's ill-fated illness claim, the Allahabad High Court rejected anticipatory bail applications for two applicants in a cheating case—only to later wipe the slate clean for their lawyer after an unconditional apology. Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, presiding singly, dismissed the pleas under Section 482 BNSS on March 24, 2026, citing existing interim protection, and imposed Rs 20,000 costs on advocate Sri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava for allegedly misleading the court. By April 17, 2026, those remarks and costs were expunged upon the lawyer's remorseful plea.

Roots in a College Custody Battle

The dispute traces back to a bitter rift between cousins over Jay Prakash Degree College Umraha in Varanasi. The father of applicant Shiv Prakash Singh had established Jay Prakash Smarak Sewa Samiti to run the college. Opposite Party No. 2, the society's former manager, allegedly shifted control to his Narayan Foundation Trust via a resolution dated 17.12.2012. This sparked a flurry of litigation:

  • Shiv Prakash Singh's father filed FIR No. 509/2017 at PS Sarnath under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC; OP-2 got bail on 07.04.2023.
  • Authorities upheld the society's claim (order 22.09.2022); OP-2's writ challenges failed without interim relief.
  • In retaliation, OP-2 filed a Section 156(3) CrPC application (treated as complaint), summoning Shiv Prakash and his father; no-coercive order granted on 22.01.2025.
  • OP-2 then lodged FIR No. 411/2020 at PS Cantt under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against Shiv Prakash, his father Arun Kumar Yadav , and others—prompting interim protection till police report (28.10.2023).

A charge-sheet followed on 05.12.2024, challenged by applicants via Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 5350/2025, securing interim stay on proceedings (18.09.2025). As per LiveLaw reports, this backdrop framed the anticipatory bail bids (Nos. 2375 & 2551/2025).

Dueling Defenses: Vengeance Claims vs. No-Arrest Fears

Applicants' Pitch : Arun Kumar Yadav and Shiv Prakash Singh portrayed themselves as innocent victims of OP-2's "vengeance" amid parallel litigations. No credible evidence existed; no coercive process issued. They pledged cooperation, denying misuse of liberty. Counsel highlighted identical averments in prior complaints/FIRs and existing protections.

Opposition Fire : State AGA and informant counsel Puspendra Kumar Yadav countered fiercely. Key blows: - Counsel Srivastava sent an "illness slip" that day but appeared in Special Appeal Defective No. 66/2026 before the Chief Justice (appearance slip on record). - Interim stay in the 528 BNSS application already shielded from arrest—no NAB needed. - Bail apps lingered since Q1 2025, adjourned repeatedly on counsel's requests/absences, wasting court time.

Court's Sharp Scalpel: Protection Trumps Bail, Conduct Draws Ire

Justice Chowdhary zeroed in on redundancy: "Since interim protection has already been granted... there is no apprehension of arrest." Applications rejected outright (Para 7). But the real sting targeted counsel's conduct—filing NAB despite the stay, non-disclosure, and the illness ruse. The bench lambasted it as an "attempt to deceive the Court that amounts to interference with the administration of justice," amid overburdened dockets. Costs ordered for High Court Legal Services Committee, with Bar Council referral threat.

No precedents explicitly cited, but the ruling underscores advocates' duty as "officers of the Court" to present true facts, echoing broader judicial frustration with dilatory tactics.

Key Observations

"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." (Order dated 24.03.2026, Para 8)

"Being officer of the Court, 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." (Para 8)

"Considering the written unconditional apology made in the affidavit... as well as unconditional oral apology made by Shri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, the observations/directions made in para-8 to 10... stand deleted." (Modification order, 17.04.2026, Para 3)

Mercy in Modification: Apology Accepted, Remarks Erased

Srivastava's swift Criminal Misc. Modification Application No. 3/2026 tendered an "unconditional apology" via affidavit and orally. Justice Chowdhary, balancing firmness with fairness, allowed it: adverse paras 8-10 deleted. No lasting scar, but a stark reminder.

Implications : Reinforces that duplicate protections won't fly in bail pleas. For advocates, it's a cautionary tale—transparency is non-negotiable, but genuine remorse can redeem. Amid Varanasi's college control saga, applicants remain shielded by the 528 BNSS stay, with trial cooperation mandated.

This episode, as covered in prior LiveLaw pieces like "Counsel Sends Illness Slip But Appears Elsewhere," spotlights the high stakes of courtroom candor in India's clogged judicial corridors.