Cancelling his bail and ordering that he be taken into immediate custody, a bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to inquire into his conduct to determine whether he is fit to continue in the legal profession.

Briefly put, an FIR was lodged by a lady advocate practising in the High Court alleging that the applicant, also an advocate, had been continuously harassing and stalking her for about 11 months.

She further alleged that the applicant had been persistently following and obstructing her, compelling her to enter into an engagement, making repeated unsolicited telephone calls and objectionable voice messages.

Allegedly, he also defamed and character assassinated her, intruded into her professional sphere, misrepresented his identity before the Court and thereby caused her mental distress, psychological trauma and professional hardship.

Earlier, he was granted an interim bail on March 16, 2026, after he submitted an unconditional apology and a specific undertaking that he would not visit the High Court without leave of the Court or try to contact the informant either physically or through social media.

However, despite this, the Court took exception to two acts of misconduct by the applicant during the pendency of the matter.

Firstly, the applicant (Chauhan) moved an application directly before Justice Deshwal's chamber, addressed directly to the Judge, seeking permission to enter the Court premises and to pursue his legal profession

Strongly deprecating this conduct, Justice Deshwal observed that a person claiming to be an Advocate is expected to be aware that, if he seeks modification of any order passed by this Court, the proper course is to file an appropriate application before the Registry and not to address or forward the same directly to the Judge in Chambers.

The Court remarked that, prima facie, the aforesaid act of the applicant appeared to be an "attempt to influence me [the Judge] and may amount to interference with the administration of justice".

Secondly, after the completion of the dictation of the day's order, the Court found the applicant to be present in the courtroom despite his specific undertaking given at the time of seeking interim bail that he would not appear before the Court so that the victim may not feel intimidated.

Taking serious note of the same, the bench remarked thus:

“Today, this Court is surprised to find that the applicant himself is present in Court in violation of his undertaking, despite the fact that his counsel is also present. Apart from this, the act of sending an application personally to me, who is sitting in the roster of bail applications, also reflects the conduct of the applicant.”

In view of his conduct, the interim bail granted to him was cancelled. Justice Deshwal directed that he be taken into custody forthwith and handed over to the S.H.O., Civil Lines, Prayagraj, who shall produce him before the Magistrate concerned for preparation of the requisite warrant and for sending him to jail.

With the aforesaid observations, the bail application was hereby rejected.

However, recognizing the victim's continued apprehensions, the Court further directed that the personal security provided to the first informant shall remain in force till the conclusion of the trial of this case.

Finally, the Registrar (Compliance) was ordered to communicate a copy of the order to the Secretary of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to conduct an appropriate enquiry into the conduct of the applicant and take appropriate action, in accordance with law.

Advocate Basant Kumar Chauhan, along with Advocate Shyam Chandra Pandey, appeared for the applicant

Advocate Satyam Singh, along with Advocate Abhijeet Verma, appeared for the first informant

AGA Roshan Kumar Singh appeared for the State