The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a bail application, sharply criticising the repeated non-appearance of the applicant’s counsel as a misuse of the judicial process and a waste of valuable court time.

The order was passed by Justice Krishan Pahal, who noted that the counsel for the applicant, Smt. Pooja, had failed to appear for hearings on at least five occasions over the past year and a half, including the latest hearing held on July 8, 2025.

“Advocates are not appearing in majority of listed cases, that too on multiple dates,” the Court observed. Describing the repeated absence as “professional misconduct,” Justice Pahal said such conduct also raised serious concerns of bench hunting or forum shopping.

The Court drew support from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal (2021), reiterating that courts must resist routinely granting adjournments, as delays erode public confidence in the justice delivery system.

“Mere pendency of a bail application cannot be construed as creating any right in favour of the applicant,” the Court stated. It further pointed out that the trial was nearing conclusion, with the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC already recorded. Despite being listed multiple times—including on January 31, February 15, March 1, March 6, and April 10—neither the applicant nor her counsel had appeared or offered any explanation for their absence.

Calling it a “blatant abuse of the process of law,” the Court remarked that judicial resources, especially court time, are limited and stretched to their limits. “Unjustified use of judicial time must be curbed,” the judge said, adding that litigants who frivolously waste court time should be made to compensate both the opposing party and the justice system.

The Court also cited a 2008 ruling of the Allahabad High Court, which urged members of the Bar to refuse involvement in frivolous or delay-oriented litigation. That ruling warned that such practices unfairly burden the judiciary and deny genuine litigants access to justice.

In the present case, the Court concluded that the applicant appeared disinterested in pursuing the matter and accordingly declared the bail plea infructuous. The application was dismissed.

Case Title: Smt. Pooja v. State of Uttar Pradesh