Attempt To Deceive Court: Allahabad High Court Slams Advocate Over “Illness Slip” Misuse; Imposes ₹20,000 Costs
It was noted that “illness slip has been sent” by the counsel, but at the same time, he has put in appearance before another Bench.
The Allahabad High Court has slammed an advocate observing that his conduct “makes an attempt to deceive the Court that amounts to interference with the administration of justice,” and imposed costs of ₹20,000.
The Court was hearing anticipatory bail applications filed by the applicants.
A bench of Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary noted that “illness slip has been sent” by the counsel, but at the same time, he has put in appearance in Special Appeal Defective No. 66 of 2026 before another Bench. The informant’s counsel produced the appearance slip, which was taken on record.
Advocate Jitendra Kumar Srivastava appeared for the Applicants and Advocate Pushpendra Kumar Yadav appeared for the respondents.
Taking serious note, the Court recorded that “Learned counsel for the applicants made no effort to apprise the Court of the correct status of the matter, as such this Court takes serious note of the same. The conduct of the counsel for the applicants demonstrate that the counsel for the applicants makes an attempt to deceive the Court that amounts to interference with the administration of justice especially when numbers of fresh cases are being filed everyday and the Courts are already overburdened with the pendency of cases. Being officer of the Court, it is the duty of the learned counsel to assist the Court with true facts so as to save the precious time of the Court. By the conduct offered by learned counsel for the applicants, precious time of the Court has been wasted in the instant case.”
It further observed that since filing of the anticipatory bail applications in the first quarter of 2025, “the cases have either been adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the applicants or the counsel for the applicants remained absent, except appearing before the Court on few dates.”
The Court emphasized that during the pendency of the bail applications, the same counsel had filed proceedings under Section 528 BNSS and obtained interim protection, and thus there is no apprehension of arrest of the applicants.
The Court held that such conduct wastes judicial time, noting that precious time of the Court has been wasted, especially when courts are already overburdened with the pendency of cases.
Accordingly, while rejecting the anticipatory bail applications on the ground that there is no apprehension of arrest, the Court imposed a cost of ₹20,000 on the counsel.
The Court further directed that in case of default, the matter shall be referred to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for appropriate action.
Cause Title: Arun Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr., [2026:DHC:62958]