MAHENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17236 of 2025

Mahendra
                                                                .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)            :   Sanjeev Kumar, Shabina Kumari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)       :   Dinesh Kumar Pandey, G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sl. No.82 out of 259)

                         HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. Neither learned counsel for the applicant nor
learned counsel for the informant is present. Learned A.G.A., Sri Sunil
Kumar, is present.

2. Applicant seeks bail in S.T. No. 30 of 2025, Case Crime No. 386 of 2024,
under Sections 352, 65(2) BNS and 5M/6 POCSO Act, Police Station
Paniyara, District Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial.

3. The instant bail application was filed on 16.5.2025 and none was present
on behalf of the applicant to press it on 24.11.2025, 1.2.2026 and so is the
case today.

4. It is observed by this Court that advocates are not appearing in majority of
listed cases that too on multiple dates. Non-appearance of the counsel for the
applicant amounts to professional misconduct. It also tantamount to bench
hunting or forum shopping.

5. The Supreme Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC
612 has categorically held that courts shall not grant the adjournments in
routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay
in dispensing the justice. It was also opined that the courts have to be
diligent and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice
dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law.

6. Mere pendency of the bail application cannot accrue any right in favour of
                                                                 BAIL No. 17236 of 2025
                                    2


the applicant. It cannot be allowed to swing years together in the cloak of
pendency. The applicant cannot be permitted to dilute the stream of justice
by repeatedly remaining absent from judicial proceedings without any
reasonable explanation. Absence of any reason for non-appearance is blatant
abuse of process of law, even though the order is available on the website of
the High Court.

7. The resources of the Court which includes precious judicial time are
scarce and already stretched beyond elastic limits. Valuable Court time,
which is required to be engaged in adjudication of serious judicial action, is
wasted on frivolous and vexatious litigation which is misconceived and is an
abuse of the process of law. A judicial system has less than sufficient
resources to afford justice without unreasonable delay to those having
genuine grievances. Therefore, increasingly, the Courts have held that totally
unjustified use of judicial time must be curbed and the party so wasting
precious judicial resources, must be required to compensate not only the
adversary but also the judicial system itself.

8. A Division Bench of this Court in Ashwani Kumar Srivastava v. D. Sen
Gupta Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Bombay, 2008 SCC OnLine All 723 has categorically expressed in para-22:

"22. ………… Learned Advocates being officers of the Court owe a duty not only to
the Court but to their clients also in getting the cases decided expeditiously so as to
achieve the objective of dispensation of justice. The time of the Court is precious for
the reason that it is public's time and must be utilised for adjudicating matters which
have substance and need to be decided at the earliest. The arm of justice must reach
the aggrieved person dispensing justice speedily. If time of the Court is consumed, and
that too, a lion's share, by frivolous and bogus litigation, it is bound to take away the
time which could have been utilised for really needy litigants. The time has come when
the learned members of the Bar should rise to the occasion and discourage frivolous
and bogus litigation by telling their clients that they would not be a party to such kind
of litigation. Frivolous litigation only adds burden on the Court and deprives real
litigants from the shower of justice at a time when he really needs it. Needless to say,
it would be healthier for institution in particular and public at large and this pious
institution would be able to achieve its constitutional obligation of dispensation of
justice in deserving cases with greater pace."
                                                                                               BAIL No. 17236 of 2025
                                                                     3


                                    9. The Supreme Court in the case of Lakshya Tawar vs. Central Bureau of
                                    Investigation [SLP (Crl.) No.5480 of 2025] has observed that in the matters
                                    of personal liberty, the High Courts are not expected to keep the matter
                                    pending for such a long time and do nothing, except for adjourning from
                                    time to time.

                                    10. It appears that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the matter.
                                    Therefore, by the efflux of time, it seems to have been rendered infructuous.

                                    11. The instant case is the misuse of process of Court by the applicant.

                                    12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court declines to
                                    entertain this bail application. The application is, accordingly, rejected.



                                                                                                (Krishan Pahal,J.)
                                    April 23, 2026
                                    Shalini




Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad