Allahabad High Court
MUNAWWAR HASAN MANSOORIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is dismissed; the accused is not entitled to bail.
Summary
Munawwar Hasan Mansoori applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 154 of 2025) involving offences under Section 65(2) of the BNS Act and Sections 5(M) and 6 of the POCSO Act, with two child victims, one of whom sustained injuries. The applicant’s counsel failed to appear on multiple listed dates, including the date of filing and subsequent hearing, prompting the High Court Legal Services Committee to oppose bail. The bench observed that repeated non‑appearance amounted to professional misconduct, abuse of process, and bench‑hunting, and that the applicant appeared to have lost interest in pursuing the matter. Considering the seriousness of the offences, the injury to victim V1, and the waste of judicial resources, the court rejected the bail application. The order directed the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate the decision to the concerned authority.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite the seriousness of the offences under the BNS Act and POCSO Act.
- Whether the repeated non‑appearance of counsel constitutes abuse of process warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the injury to one of the victims influences the bail decision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- professional misconduct
- abuse of process
- POCSO
- criminal procedure
- judicial resources
- non‑appearance
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40784 of 2025
Munawwar Hasan Mansoori
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bhavana Mishra, G.A., R.U. Rinki
Renu
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 112 out of 269)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Neither the counsel for the applicant nor the
counsel for the informant is present. However, Ms. Bhavana Mishra,
learned counsel for High Court Legal Services Committee and Sri Yogesh
Mishra, learned State Law Officer are present.
2. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 154 of 2025, U/S 65(2) of BNS
and Sections 5(M)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Izzat Nagar, District
- Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.
3. Learned counsel for the High Court Legal Services Committee has
opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that even on the earlier date, i.e.
08.04.2026, counsel for the applicant was absent. It is further submitted
that there are two victims in the present bail application, and, as per the
medical reports, victim V1 has sustained injuries whereas victim V2 has
not suffered any injury.
4. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I myself have perused the
record. The instant bail application was filed on 15.11.2025 and none was
present on behalf of the applicant to press it on 08.04.2026 and so is the
case today. As per the medical report, redness was found present on the
vital part of victim V1.
5. 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
BAIL No. 40784 of 2025
2
for the applicant amounts to professional misconduct. It also tantamounts
to bench hunting or forum shopping.
6. Mere pendency of the bail application cannot accrue any right in favour
of 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. 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.
9. The instant case is the misuse of process of court by the applicant.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also
the medical report of the victim V1, the application is, accordingly,
rejected.
11. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to
the concerned Court/authority for necessary information and compliance,
forthwith.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 14, 2026
Siddhant
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…