Court Directs Filing of Medical Evidence and Injured's Statement; Counsel's Misconduct in Court Leads to Contempt Referral
In a noteworthy decision, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Santosh Rai, took significant steps in addressing allegations of false implication in the case of Kunal versus the State of Uttar Pradesh. The court was hearing a bail application related to an incident where the injured party, Yash Jain, had reportedly sustained a firearm injury to the chest. Despite the FIR being registered on January 19, 2026, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) had yet to record the statement of the injured party, raising questions about the thoroughness of the investigation.
Counsel for the applicant, Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, argued that his client, Kunal, was falsely implicated, highlighting the lapse in recording the injured's statement. The Additional Government Advocate (AGA) acknowledged this oversight during the hearing. Consequently, the court directed the AGA to file a counter affidavit within three weeks, accompanied by complete medical evidence, the injury report, and statements from both the injured party and the attending doctor. The case is scheduled to be heard again on March 10, 2026.
However, the proceedings took an unexpected turn when Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, counsel for the applicant, engaged in conduct that the court deemed scandalous and derogatory. Following the court's directions, Mishra vociferously questioned the court's authority and suggested bias, alleging pressure from the government on the judge. This behavior, characterized by loud and aggressive remarks, was considered an attempt to lower the court's dignity and disrupt judicial proceedings.
Justice Santosh Rai noted that Mishra's actions appeared to fall under the purview of criminal contempt as defined by Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This section pertains to acts that scandalize or lower the authority of the court and interfere with the administration of justice. The court decided to refer the matter to the Chief Justice for appropriate action, potentially paving the way for formal contempt proceedings against Mishra.
The court's decision underscores its commitment to ensuring justice and upholding the dignity of judicial processes, while also addressing procedural lapses in the investigation. The proceedings highlight the delicate balance courts must maintain between safeguarding individual rights and preserving the integrity of the judicial system.
Bottom Line:
Bail application - Allegations of false implication - Statement of injured not recorded by Investigating Officer (I.O.) - Direction to file counter affidavit with medical evidence and other relevant documents - Misconduct by counsel leading to consideration for criminal contempt proceedings.
Statutory provision(s):
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(c)
Kunal v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2853434
