Don't Blame Bench Or Bar: Allahabad High Court Flags 'Obnoxious' Litigant Tactic To Stall Appeal Hearings After Getting Bail

The Allahabad High Court has strongly called out and condemned the "obnoxious tendency" among litigants to secure bail in criminal appeals and subsequently instructing their lawyers not to appear for final hearings.

The Court remarked that in seminars, when the causes of delays in Courts are debated, the role of the litigants is mostly discounted, and the litigant is seen as a helpless man in the hands of the Bar and the Bench; however, it is not the case.

A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi added that it is time when litigants are shown the mirror about their own conduct and the way they discharge their limited role in Court.

The observations were made by the bench while hearing a criminal appeal filed by one Ram Narayan. The appellant was granted bail by a Division Bench on January 8, 2025. The Court had directed the compilation of paper-books so the appeal could be heard in due course.

However, when the matter was taken up on January 30, 2026, no counsel appeared for the appellant. The Court gave further time and directed the office to notify the appellant's counsel.

Despite the paper books being compiled and furnished to the Additional Government Advocate, the appellant's lawyer again remained absent when the case was called on March 18, 2026.

Taking serious note of this, the High Court said that the lawyers can't be blamed for not appearing when the litigants themselves instruct them not to appear for the appeal hearing, as the advocates have no authority to act beyond the client's instructions.

"No doubt, the learned Counsel is an officer of the Court and has his own obligations, but idealism of the principle cannot be stretched beyond realistic limits. It is after all a criminal case, where a litigant has the right to be represented by a learned Counsel of his choice. If a litigant instructs learned Counsel not to appear, the learned Counsel has no authority to appear further", the Court remarked.

The bench emphasised that, barring a few exceptions, there is no Lawyer and no Judge before whom a case duly assigned to be argued or heard would not do his duty.

The Court further stressed that these are but a few malpractices prevailing amongst the litigating public, which they seldom pay attention to when they go on a tirade to criticise ills of delays, etc., that ail the Court.

The Court opined that the real difficulty arises when those whose interests are involved deliberately withdraw or wish the proceedings to "go into a lull". This leaves the Court with options that involve virtually battling with the litigants to compel them to argue the case on the merits.

Further, finding the present case to be an instance of this evasive tactic, the High Court issued a bailable warrant of arrest against the appellant, Ram Narayan.

The bench directed the appellant to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, on or before March 23 and furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount together with an undertaking binding himself over to appear before this Court on March 25.

The Superintendent of Police, Sonbhadra, has been directed to ensure that this warrant is served upon the appellant without fail and is not returned by any elusive or 'friendly' Policemen who file a report stating that Ram Narayan is not available.