The Allahabad High Court directed that contempt action be initiated against an advocate who made remarks against the dignity of the Court during the hearing of a criminal bail application.
According to the case, while considering a bail application in a criminal matter, the Court found that the injured person had sustained a gunshot wound to the chest.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had been implicated on false allegations and the Investigating Officer had still not recorded the statement of the injured person.
The State also accepted that although the FIR had been lodged on 19 January 2026, and also the injured person’s statement had still not been recorded during the investigation.
In these circumstances, the Court directed the State to file a counter-affidavit within three weeks, with complete medical evidence, the injury report, and the statements of the injured person and the doctor, and instructed that the matter be listed again on 10 March 2026.
After the order was delivered by Justice Santosh Rai, counsel for the applicant, Kunal, allegedly protested in open court in a loud tone, questioned the Court’s authority, and began making remarks considered inappropriate regarding the proceedings.
Counsel for the applicant, Â Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, stated in open court that,
“Why are you calling for a counter affidavit in this case? You do not have the courage to seek explanation from the concerned Investigating Officer who, till date, has not recorded the statement of the injured. You (Judge) have no authority to pass any order against the Investigating Officer. It appears that you are working under the pressure of the Government.”
The Court described the remarks of the advocate as being against the dignity of the Court. The Court noted that:
“The words used by Sri Mishra, his tone, body language and the manner in which the statements were made were highly objectionable, scandalous and derogatory, and tended to lower the authority and dignity of the Court in the eyes of those present in Court.”
The Court further found that the advocate’s objectionable conduct disrupted judicial proceedings for nearly ten minutes.
Accordingly, Â the Court held that such conduct fell within the category of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as it lowered the authority of the Court and obstructed the administration of justice.
Finally, the Court directed that a separate reference be prepared for initiating contempt proceedings and be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
With these observations, the instant bail application was released with a direction to the Registry to list the matter before another Bench.
The bail application has been listed for further hearing on 10.03.2026.
Case: Kunal vs State of U.P.
Date of Order: 12.02.2026
See the Order: Kunal vs State of U.P.
