The Allahabad High Court has cancelled the interim bail granted to an advocate accused in a criminal case after finding that he allegedly violated the conditions of his release. The Court observed that the applicant entered the High Court premises despite giving an undertaking that he would stay away until the next hearing and also sent a personal application directly to the judge instead of following the prescribed legal procedure.
Background of the Case
The bail application arose from Case Crime No. 320 of 2025 registered at Civil Lines Police Station, Prayagraj. According to the FIR, the complainant, who is a woman advocate practicing before the High Court, alleged that the applicant had repeatedly followed her, attempted to contact her despite her unwillingness, made unsolicited calls and voice messages, and caused her mental distress over several months. During the investigation, the police collected electronic evidence, recorded statements, and later filed a charge sheet.
Earlier, on March 16, 2026, the High Court had granted interim bail after noting that the applicant had remained in custody for several months, the charge sheet had already been filed, and the complainant's statement had been recorded. The applicant had also tendered an unconditional apology and assured the Court that he would neither contact the complainant nor enter the High Court premises without permission.
Court's Observations
When the matter came up again, counsel for the complainant informed the Court that an application would be filed seeking cancellation of the interim bail, alleging that the applicant had breached the conditions imposed by the Court. The Court also noted that the applicant had addressed an application directly to the judge seeking permission to enter the Court premises and continue his legal practice.
The bench observed,
"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."
During the hearing, the Court found the applicant personally present in the courtroom despite his earlier undertaking not to appear before the Court until the next listing. Referring to this conduct, the bench stated that it was surprised to find the applicant in Court and noted that his actions reflected disregard for the undertaking given while seeking interim bail.
Decision
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal cancelled the applicant's interim bail, directed that he be taken into custody immediately, and rejected the regular bail application. The Court further ordered that personal security already provided to the woman advocate would continue until the conclusion of the trial.
Additionally, observing that the applicant's conduct appeared "contemptuous and wholly unprofessional," the Court directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to conduct an inquiry and take appropriate action in accordance with law regarding his fitness to continue in the legal profession.
Case Details
Case Title: V. S. C v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31738 of 2025
Judge: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
Decision Date: 20 July 2026
