Back
Cancels of Advocate Over Stalking Allegations and Courtroom Misconduct
In a dramatic turn of events inside a courtroom, the on Monday cancelled the of an advocate accused of stalking and harassing a woman lawyer, after he was found to have brazenly violated multiple undertakings given to the Court—including showing up in person at the very hearing where his conduct was under scrutiny.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, presiding over the matter, directed that the accused be taken into immediate custody and ordered the to launch an inquiry into whether he remains fit to practise law.
When Persistent Stalking Crossed Professional Boundaries
The case traces back to a lodged by a lady advocate practising before the High Court, who alleged that the applicant, —also an advocate—had subjected her to a relentless campaign of harassment spanning approximately eleven months.
The allegations painted a disturbing picture: Chauhan allegedly followed and obstructed her repeatedly, made unsolicited and objectionable phone calls, sent inappropriate voice messages, and even misrepresented his identity before the Court. The first informant stated that these intrusions extended into her professional sphere, causing severe mental distress, psychological trauma, and significant professional hardship. The FIR was registered under multiple sections of the , including Sections 75, 78, 77, 126(2), 351(3), 319(2), 229, 338, and 308(6).
Following investigation, during which electronic evidence—including a pen-drive, chat screenshots, and voice messages—was collected and the informant's statement was recorded under before a Magistrate, Chauhan was arrested on , and subsequently .
A Conditional Reprieve: The Order
On , the High Court granted Chauhan after considering several factors: he had been in custody since August 2025, the chargesheet had been filed, and the first informant's statement had already been recorded before the trial court. Crucially, Chauhan himself tendered an unconditional apology and gave specific undertakings to secure his release.
The Court imposed stringent conditions. Chauhan was barred from entering the High Court premises without , prohibited from contacting the first informant through any means—physical or digital—and required to cooperate with trial proceedings. Acknowledging the victim's apprehensions, Justice Deshwal also directed the , to provide personal security to her until the next date of listing.
An Application to Chambers and a Surprise Appearance
The fragile arrangement unravelled swiftly. During the subsequent hearing, the Court took serious note of two distinct acts of misconduct by Chauhan.
First, Justice Deshwal revealed that an application from Chauhan, seeking permission to enter the Court premises and resume his legal practice, had been sent directly to the Judge's chamber—bypassing the Registry entirely. The Court deprecated this conduct in strong terms, observing that a person claiming to be an advocate ought to know that the proper procedure is to file an application through the Registry, not to forward it personally to the presiding Judge.
The Court recorded its view that the act appeared to be
"an attempt to influence me and may amount to interference with the
."
Second, and even more startling, after the dictation of the day's order had been completed, Justice Deshwal noticed that Chauhan himself was present in the courtroom—openly defying the specific he had furnished as a condition of his .
The Court expressed its astonishment in pointed terms:
"Today, this Court is surprised to find that the applicant himself is present in Court in violation of his , despite the fact that his counsel is also present. Apart from this, the act of sending an application personally to me, who is sitting in the roster of bail applications, also reflects the conduct of the applicant."
Bail Cancelled, Custody Ordered
Finding that Chauhan had demonstrably breached the conditions of his , Justice Deshwal ordered its immediate cancellation. The accused was taken into custody forthwith and handed over to the Station House Officer, Civil Lines, Prayagraj, with directions to produce him before the concerned Magistrate for preparation of a warrant and to jail.
The bail application itself was rejected.
However, recognising the continuing vulnerability of the first informant, the Court ordered that her personal security detail would remain in force until the conclusion of the trial.
Bar Council Directed to Examine Fitness to Practise
Beyond the immediate criminal proceedings, the Court turned its attention to the broader implications of Chauhan's conduct for the legal profession. Characterising his actions as "contemptuous and wholly unprofessional," Justice Deshwal directed the to conduct an appropriate enquiry into his conduct and to determine, in accordance with law, whether he is fit to continue practising law.
The Registrar (Compliance) was instructed to communicate a copy of the order to the Bar Council's Secretary.
A Stern Reminder on Courtroom Conduct
The judgment serves as a powerful reminder that undertakings given to a court are not mere formalities—they carry binding legal force, and their violation invites swift and severe consequences. The case also underscores the judiciary's willingness to hold members of the legal profession to the highest standards of ethical conduct, both inside and outside the courtroom. For Chauhan, the path from conditional liberty back to custody was paved by his own failure to honour the promises he made to secure that liberty in the first place.
