Jharkhand High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail; Advocate's Misconduct Sparks Contempt Concerns
Advocates engage in disruptive behavior in court, prompting possible contempt proceedings; matter referred to State Bar Council
In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court, presided by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, has denied anticipatory bail to petitioners Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Verma and others involved in a high-profile land dispute case. The decision comes amidst allegations of land grabbing against the petitioners, involving an aged informant.
During the court proceedings, the petitioners' counsel, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, engaged in loud and disruptive arguments, threatening the court with an appeal to the Supreme Court, which was witnessed by several advocates present. This behavior was deemed an attack on the judiciary, raising concerns about contempt of court.
Justice Dwivedi noted the seriousness of the allegations and the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, particularly highlighting the rampant nature of such crimes in Jharkhand. The court's decision to reject bail was based on these factors and the need to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.
Following the disruptive conduct, the court considered initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Mr. Rakesh Kumar. However, upon the intervention and request of the Bar Association members, including the President and Secretary, the court decided against immediate contempt action. The matter has been referred to the Jharkhand State Bar Council for appropriate measures.
Justice Dwivedi underscored the importance of maintaining public trust and confidence in the judiciary, emphasizing that any attack on a judge is an attack on the entire judicial system. The court's leniency, influenced by the Bar Association's request, aims to prevent similar future occurrences and preserve the dignity of the institution.
The Registry has been directed to communicate this order to the Chairman of the Jharkhand State Bar Council promptly. This case underscores the judiciary's commitment to impartial justice and the critical role of advocate conduct in the administration of justice.
Bottom Line:
Advocate's misconduct in open court, including loud arguments and threatening remarks to the judge, amounts to an attack on the judiciary and its administration of justice. However, leniency was shown due to intervention by the Bar Association, and the matter was referred to the Jharkhand State Bar Council for appropriate action.
Statutory provision(s): Advocates Act, 1961, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 308(4), 324(4), 333, 304, 352, 351(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand, (Jharkhand) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2784494
