The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently cautioned an advocate after he alleged that the Court grants bail only to those accused who are represented by Senior Advocates, and his client was denied relief because he was only a “junior” lawyer.

In an order passed on May 8, Justice Ramkumar Choubey said the Court was refraining from initiating contempt of court proceedings against the counsel since he tendered an unconditional apology for his submission.

“Considering the aforesaid, when Shri Saini tendered his apology, this Court is not inclined to initiate contempt proceeding against him, however, cautioning him to remain conscious of the sanctity of judicial proceedings and to be specific and circumspect while making submissions before this Court,” the Court said.

During the hearing of a bail matter on May 6, the counsel is stated to have told the Court that in matters of similar nature arising under the Essential Commodities Act, it has granted bail to accused persons who were represented by Senior Advocates.

As per the order, the lawyer is said to have contended that denial of similar relief to his client  “merely because his counsel is a junior advocate” would not be appropriate.

The Court took strong objection to the submission and asked the counsel to produce on record such bail orders.

“The aforesaid submission, prima facie, attributes extraneous considerations to the judicial functioning of the Court and appears to be derogatory to the dignity of the High Court,” the Bench noted on May 6.

On May 8, the counsel said that he was neither aware of nor was he in possession of any such bail order passed by the Court.

He added that his earlier statement was largely focused upon an order passed by a co-ordinate bench.

The counsel then apologised for his earlier statement. The same was accepted by the Court.

The matter has now been listed for consideration of the bail application on May 15. 

[Read Order]