Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.

1. Heard Sri Bhuwan Raj, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhishek Amritanshu, learned counsel for opposite party Mrs. Swati Agarwal.

2. By means of present application, the applicant has prayed for taking judicial notice of conduct of Mrs. Swati Agarwal, Advocate and issue notice to her as to why she should not be punished for contempt of High Court being a Court of Record and as to why her name be not removed from the Rolls of Advocates of High Court being her conduct unbecoming of an officer of the Court.

3. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant under Article 215 of the Constitution of India against opposite party Mrs. Swati Agarwal, Advocate High Court, Ex. Special Counsel for the State for issuing notice to her on the aforesaid application for committing contempt of this Court.

4. Though notice was not issued to opposite party Mrs. Swati Agarwal but before issuing notice to her it was deemed appropriate that objection may be invited by her, who has submitted her objections on the present application.

5. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is in custody in connection with case crime no. 515 of 1996 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307/34 I.P.C. and 7 C.L.A. Act, police station Civil Lines, District Allahabad since 28.4.2015. He has filed the aforesaid bail application on behalf of the applicant on 8.3.2017 which was taken up by this Court on 10.3.2017 being tied up to this Bench. A copy of the notice of bail application was served to opposite party Mrs. Swati Agarwal being Special for the State of U.P. at that point of time. The Court granted time to the parties to exchange their pleadings on 10.3.2017. He further submitted that Mrs. Swati Agarwal opposite party was removed from the post of Special Counsel of the State of U.P. on 30.3.2017. He submitted that on 12.5.2017 Mrs. Swati Agarwal opposite party after being removed as Special Counsel of the State of U.P. on 30.3.2017 itself appeared having no locus to appear in the instant bail application and laid stress before the Court that she is still the Special Counsel of the State of U.P. and in order to delay the hearing of the bail application continued laying stress that she has not been removed from the post of Special Counsel on which this Court passed an order directing the Advocate General to inform the Court whether Mrs. Swati Agarwal opposite party is still the Special Counsel for the State of U.P. or not. He argued that Mrs. Swati Agarwal opposite party played fraud in open Court in order to stall the proceedings of the Court and in order to delay the hearing of a bail application in which the pleading were already completed and the matter was ripe for hearing and having no locus to appear in the instant bail application appeared and gave a false statement. It is further submitted that she deliberately gave a false statement that she is still the Special Counsel for the State of U.P. though it was well within her personal knowledge that she is on that date not even a counsel in the instant bail application. He argued that by giving a false statement in Court on 12.5.2017 she managed to get the case adjourned for 19.5.2017. On 19.5.2017, she further took an adjournment by stating before the Court that she now wishes to appear from the side of informant and took another date thereby delaying the hearing of the bail application in which the pleading were already completed. He argued that Mrs. Swati Agarwal opposite party appeared on 12.5.2017 and 19.5.2017 without having any authority to appear in the instant bail application. He argued that it would be a professional misconduct if she appears from the side of the informant being the Ex. Special Counsel for the State of U.P. He submitted that it is very serious that an Advocate on the Rolls of the High Court appears in a case to delay the proceedings of a bail ap