The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of a lawyer to act as an officer of the court and maintain professional standards and ethical conduct, as well as the consequences of suppressing facts and engaging in unfair means.

ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri Mahavir Pathak, Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Vinod Pathak, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Case diary is available.

2. This is sixth application filed under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail.

3. The applicant has been arrested on 7-8-2018 in connection with Crime No. 368/2017 registered by Police Station Padav, District Gwalior for offence punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B, 34 of Indian Penal Code.

4. Fourth application was dismissed by this Court by order dated 29-7-2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 28730/2019, against which the applicant had preferred a SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 45740/2019 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 24-1-2020 with a direction to the trial Court to complete the trial within a period of four months from the date of communication of the order.

5. The applicant has not filed the copies of the order-sheets of the trial Court to show that the applicant is not responsible for the delay.

6. Furthermore, the disturbing fact is that the applicant has suppressed the fact of filing of SLP and its dismissal by the Supreme Court.

7. Clause 2 of the bail application reads as under : –

8. Even the applicant has not filed the copy of the order dated 24-1-2020 passed by the Supreme Court in the SLP. Thus, it is clear that in spite of the specific clause in the format of bail application, the applicant deliberately suppressed the fact of dismissal of SLP by the Supreme Court.

9. While deciding the previous bail application, this Court had mentioned the fact of dismissal of SLP by the Supreme Court in detail and the counsel for the applicant was so daring that in spite of filing the copy of last order-sheet of the Court, in which the details of the Supreme Court order were mentioned, did not declare that his SLP has already been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Even the during course of argument, this fact was not disclosed by Shri Pathak. When the fact of non-disclosure of dismissal of S.L.P. by Supreme Court was pointed out to Shri Pathak, then he did not show any remorse. Thus, it is a clear case of contempt by misleading this Court.

10. When this Court was inclined to issue Contempt Notice, then it was submitted by Shri Mahavir Pathak that contempt notice may not be issued and he is ready to submit his written apology.

11. Accordingly, dictation of the order was deferred for some time, in order to facilitate Shri Pathak to file his affidavit. Thereafter, Shri Pathak filed his affidavit, which reads as under : –

12. Section 52 of Indian Penal Code reads as under :

52. “Good faith”. – Nothing is said to be done or believed in “good faith” which is done or believed without due care and attention.

13. The factum of dismissal of S.L.P. by Supreme Court is specifically mentioned in the previous order of this Court, by which the 5th application of the applicant was dismissed. The Copy of the said order of the High Court has also been filed by the applicant. Thus, it cannot be said that non-disclosure of factum of dismissal of S.L.P. by Supreme Court was bona fide mistake of the Lawyer because the Counsel was aware of the fact of dismissal of S.L.P. by Supreme Court and he also cannot claim that he could not discover the information in spite of his due attention and care. Thus, the act of Shri Pathak is a glaring example of unfair means.

14. Further, this Court would like to mention about the duties of a lawyer towards the Court.

15. The Supreme Court in the case of R. K. Anand vs. Delhi High Court, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 106 has held as under :

“Role of the Lawyer 331. The other important issue thrown up by this case and that causes us both grave concern and dismay is the decline of ethical and professional standards among lawyers. The conduct of the two appellants (one convicted of committing criminal contempt of Court and the other found guilty of misconduct as Special Public Prosecutor), both of them lawyers of long stand