Owing to the ongoing lawyers’ strike on account of the incident occurring in District Hapur, the Allahabad High Court has directed the UP government to include a retired judicial officer on the SIT probing the incident.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi passed this order a suo motu PIL.

The Bar Council of UP has decided to abstain from judicial work on 30th August, 2023 and, thereafter, it has resolved to abstain from judicial work for a further period of three days i.e 4th, 5th and 6th September, 2023.

Ashok Singh, President, High Court Bar Association submitted that the lawyers are aggrieved by non-inclusion of any judicial officer in the SIT, which is already constituted by the State to look into the incident which occurred at Hapur.

He further submitted that the State action is wholly one sided inasmuch as atrocities were actually committed by the local administration and the local police had assaulted the lawyers.

It is urged that only one sided FIR has been lodged in the matter and despite the best efforts of the lawyers’ their FIR has not been lodged till date.

He further apprised the Court that the Chairman of the Bar Council of U.P and other members have gone to the District Hapur for further deliberations with the local Bar members, so as to ascertain the ground realities.

He has further placed reliance on the Press Note issued by the Bar Council of U.P dated 3.9.2023, wherein it was resolved that they will continue to abstain from judicial work on 4th, 5th and 6th September, 2023 and, thereafter, they will decide further course of action.

Ashok Singh said that if the SIT in the manner constituted is allowed to proceed it would cause great injustice to lawyers because the guilty police personnel shall be the judge in their own cause. Argument is that one cannot be a judge in his own cause and such an act would go contrary to principles of natural justice.

In this backdrop, the Court called upon Manish Goyal, Additional Advocate General to examine the feasibility of inclusion of a judicial officer in the SIT, so as to make the body more inclusive and transparent.

Manish Goyal on the instructions obtained from the State made a statement that the State Government has no objection in inclusion of a judicial officer in the SIT and has suggested names of three judicial officers of the rank of District Judge.

The Court said that the act of Bar Associations/Councils in resorting to strike has been frowned consistently by this Court and also by the Supreme Court as such acts on part of the lawyers does great damage not only to the litigants but it affects the administration of justice itself which is an important facet of our Constitutional democracy. The representative body of advocates have the right to raise grievances on behalf of their members but it has to be in a manner that the ultimate cause of justice itself is not defeated. As responsible citizens and soldiers of the justice dispensation system, we expect the lawyers and their representative bodies to be conscious of their obligations to the Society at large and act in a responsible manner.

The Court hope and trust that the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh as also the respective Bar Associations across the State as well as the Court and its Bench at Lucknow shall introspect and act in due deference to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India such that this Court is not required to take any unpleasant steps in the matter and forthwith resume their work.

The Court further said that doors of the Court would remain open in the event any unjust treatment is shown to be meted out to any person aggrieved.

The Court directed the State Government to include Hari Nath Pandey, Retd Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow as a member in the SIT, which is already constituted by the State Government to look into the incident in question. The SIT will proceed to conduct its enquiry and submit its report in a sealed cover at the earliest possible. An interim report shall be submitted before the Court by the next date fixed. The Superintendent of Police, Hapur shall ensure that the complaint lodged by the advocates of the incident is also duly registered and investigated as per law.

The Court has fixed the next hearing of the petition on September 15, 2023.

The Allahabad High Court while allowing the bail application directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to inquire into and take suitable action in accordance with the law against an Advocate for allegedly running a business.

A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Anil Kumar.

The application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Section 66 of Information Technology Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 15.02.2022 by one Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Civil Court, Saharanpur complaining that on 01.02.2022, some one had withdrawn Rs 500/- and Rs 15,000/- from the current account of the informant’s firm M/s Ayurherbs Remedies India.

On 09.05.2022, the Police arrested five accused persons, including the applicant on the basis of information received from a Mukhbir and 29 A.T.M cards and Rs 16,000/- are said to have been recovered.

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case and he has no previous criminal history. After the arrest of the applicant, he has been implicated in as many as six cases.

The counsel for the applicant has submitted that co accused Sumit @ Mitta who was arrested along with the applicant has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 12.10.2022. Another co-accused Monu Kumar has also been granted bail by means of an order dated 18.10.2022. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 10.05.2022.

Per contra, the Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

“Having regard to the aforesaid facts and submissions and keeping in view the fact that the alleged fraudulent withdrawal was made on 02.02.2022 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 15.02.2022 and there is no explanation for the delay; the FIR was lodged against unknown person; the applicant has been implicated in the case on the basis of his alleged confessional statement recorded by the Police after his arrest in another case and two of the co-accused persons have already been granted bail in the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail”, the Court observed while allowing the bail application.

The Court ordered that,

Let the applicant Anil Kumar be released on bail in Case under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Section 66 of Information Technology Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before the Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

However, before parting with the case, the Court noted that the informant has described himself as an Advocate whereas he has mentioned in the FIR that he is proprietor of “M/s Ayurherbs Remedies India”; it appears from the FIR itself that the informant Advocate is running business also.

The Court directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to make inquiry in the matter and take suitable action in accordance with law. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for taking suitable action.