The Allahabad High Court in the case State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. Vs. Mohd. Rizwan @ Raziwan observed and has initiated suo moto criminal contempt proceedings against an advocate who misled the court for obtaining a bail order. The bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh in the case observed and has passed the said order against Advocate Parmanand Gupta after finding that he obtained a favorable order for his client concealing the fact that earlier another bail petition had been rejected by another bench of the court. It has also been noted by the court that it being a solitary case where Parmanand Gupta had adopted the said course of action of concealing and misleading the Court. At the Outset, the said court allowed the plea of the state wherein seeking cancellation of the bail and ordered that the accused be taken into custody.
In the present case, a bail plea has been filed by the Advocate in question on behalf of his client i.e., the accused booked under Section 379, Section 411, Section 412, Section 413, Section 414, Section 419, Section 420, Section 467, Section 468, Section 471, Section 484 and Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as the first bail application and thus, the matter was listed before the Court which was dealing with the subject matter. Further, the Advocate did not mention the said fact that earlier the bail plea filed by him had been rejected and this was his second bail plea. Therefore, when the second plea was allowed by the court, the State moved the High Court wherein seeking for cancellation of the bail on the ground that the fact of rejection of the first bail plea had been concealed by the accused as well as the counsel.
The court observed while considering the facts and circumstances of the court that the Advocate, Sri Parmanand Gupta conducted himself against the Bar Council Rules, professional ethics, contemptuous manner and has played fraud with the Court and also interfered with the course of justice by misleading the Court as he concealed the material fact with regards to the rejection of the first bail application by this Bench. It has also been noted by the court that this is not being the solitary case where Advocate, Sri Parmanand Gupta, who had adopted the said course of action of misleading and concealing the Court. Accordingly, the court allowed the bail cancellation plea of the state and has directed the suo moto criminal contempt proceedings to be drawn against him.
