Jharkhand High Court directs State Bar Council to take action against lawyer who threatened judge

The Jharkhand High Court recently asked the State Bar Council to act against a lawyer for threatening the judge rejected the anticipatory bail plea of persons accused in a land-grabbing case.

The order against the lawyer was passed by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi who noted in his order that petitioners’ lawyer Rakesh Kumar created a scene in court by raising his voice and threatening him by stating he would move the Supreme Court.

The Court termed his conduct “deprecable” and said that it is a fit for criminal contempt proceedings since such behaviour undermines the dignity of the judiciary and interferes with the administration of justice.

"It is a case where attempt was made to hinder or obstruct the due administration of justice in Court and such type of interference amounts to scandalizing the Court itself, this scandalizing might manifest itself in various ways but in substance it was an attack on Judge, causing unwarranted and defamatory aspersion. Such conduct must be punished as contempt...The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. This is not a question of particular Single Judge. This is attack on the entire judiciary by a practising advocate," the Court observed.

However, the Court took into account the requests made by senior bar members and office bearers of the High Court Advocates’ Association to put the matter to rest.

Hence, it refrained from initiating contempt of court proceedings but referred the matter to the Jharkhand State Bar Council for appropriate action against the lawyer.

The High Court was hearing two connected anticipatory bail applications arising out of the same FIR registered under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The petitioners, accused of land grabbing, claimed false implication, citing land ownership documents and mobile tower location data to deny their presence at the spot.

The State and informant opposed bail, stressing that the informant is an 80-year-old man, the petitioners have criminal antecedents and similar complaints had arisen earlier.

After examining the records, the Court held that the allegations were serious and land grabbing crimes are rampant in Jharkhand.

Consequently, the Court rejected the petitioners’ plea for anticipatory bail.

Advocate Rakesh Kumar appeared for the petitioner.

APP Lily Sahay appeared for the State.

Advocates Rahul Lambe, Anish Kamal and Aditya M Khandelwal appeared for the informant.

[Read Order]