MP High Court Accepts Apology Of Lawyer Who Said Only Clients Of Senior Advocates Get Bail; Issues Caution
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has cautioned an Advocate who had claimed that the court only grants bail to accused persons represented by Senior Advocates and not Junior Advocates, while accepting his apology.
The bench of Justice Ramkumar Choubey observed;
"Considering the aforesaid, when Shri Saini tendered his apology, this Court is not inclined to initiate contempt proceeding against him, however, cautioning him to remain conscious of the sanctity of judicial proceedings and to be specific and circumspect while making submissions before this Court".
Advocate Sudeep Singh Saini was appearing before the bench on May 6 seeking bail for his client under the Essential Commodities Act, when he said that Court has granted bail to accused persons who were represented by senior advocates and that denial of similar relief to the present applicant merely because his counsel is a junior advocate would not be appropriate.
The Court found his submissions prima facie derogatory and also noted that Saini failed to place any evidence on record to demonstrate the allegations. It had thus directed him to place on record a copy of the orders passed in allegedly similar matters to substantiate his claims.
Subsequently, Saini submitted that he is neither aware nor in possession of any order passed by the court wherein bail has been granted in a similar matter to any senior advocate or any advocate.
The counsel further claimed that the allegations made by him were based on the order passed by the co-ordinate bench in MCrC No.6131/2026 (Ramprasad Vishya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh) on February 19, 2026.
For context, the case related to the grant of bail in the Essential Commodities Act, wherein the court noted that the appellant had cooperated with the investigation and the fact that he was granted anticipatory bail by the Trial Court.
Thus, the bench held that, "Earlier, the statement made at Bar by Shri Saini was found to be an extraneous consideration touching upon the judicial functioning of this Court and prima facie appeared derogatory to the dignity of this Court and contemptuous in nature".
Therefore, the court had asked Saini to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him, to which Saini apologised.
Thus, the court accepted his apology but cautioned him to consider the sanctity of the judicial proceedings while making his submissions in the future.
Case Title: Jagdish Varkade v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-14288-2026
For Petitioner: Advocate Sudeep Singh Saini
For State: Advocate Nalini Gurung