HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20929 of 2025 Court No. - 65 (Sl. No.85 out of 259) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Neither learned counsel for the applicant nor learned counsel for the informant is present. Learned State Law Officer, Sri J.K. Chaurasia, is present. 2. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 97 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 351(2), 115(2) BNS and 3/4 POCSO Act and 67-A IT Act, Police Station Najibabad, District Bijnor during the pendency of trial. 3. The instant bail application was filed on 13.6.2025 and none was present on behalf of the applicant to press it on 15.4.2026 and so is the case today. 4. It is observed by this Court that advocates are not appearing in majority of listed cases that too on multiple dates. Non-appearance of the counsel for the applicant amounts to professional misconduct. It also tantamount to bench hunting or forum shopping. 5. The Supreme Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612 has categorically held that courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. It was also opined that the courts have to be diligent and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law. 6. Mere pendency of the bail application cannot accrue any right in favour of the applicant. It cannot be allowed to swing years together in the cloak of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Afzal, Umair Mahmood Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Azizur Rahman Khan, G.A. Shehzan Ui Haq @ Arsh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) pendency. The applicant cannot be permitted to dilute the stream of justice by repeatedly remaining absent from judicial proceedings without any reasonable explanation. Absence of any reason for non-appearance is blatant abuse of process of law, even though the order is available on the website of the High Court. 7. The resources of the Court which includes precious judicial time are scarce and already stretched beyond elastic limits. Valuable Court time, which is required to be engaged in adjudication of serious judicial action, is wasted on frivolous and vexatious litigation which is misconceived and is an abuse of the process of law. A judicial system has less than sufficient resources to afford justice without unreasonable delay to those having genuine grievances. Therefore, increasingly, the Courts have held that totally unjustified use of judicial time must be curbed and the party so wasting precious judicial resources, must be required to compensate not only the adversary but also the judicial system itself. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in Ashwani Kumar Srivastava v. D. Sen Gupta Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bombay, 2008 SCC OnLine All 723 has categorically expressed in para-22: "22. ………… Learned Advocates being officers of the Court owe a duty not only to the Court but to their clients also in getting the cases decided expeditiously so as to achieve the objective of dispensation of justice. The time of the Court is precious for the reason that it is public's time and must be utilised for adjudicating matters which have substance and need to be decided at the earliest. The arm of justice must reach the aggrieved person dispensing justice speedily. If time of the Court is consumed, and that too, a lion's share, by frivolous and bogus litigation, it is bound to take away the time which could have been utilised for really needy litigants. The time has come when the learned members of the Bar should rise to the occasion and discourage frivolous and bogus litigation by telling their clients that they would not be a party to such kind of litigation. Frivolous litigation only adds burden on the Court and deprives real litigants from the shower of justice at a time when he really needs it. Needless to say, it would be healthier for institution in particular and public at large and this pious institution would be able to achieve its constitutional obligation of dispensation of justice in deserving cases with greater pace." 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Lakshya Tawar vs. Central Bureau of BAIL No. 20929 of 2025 2 Investigation [SLP (Crl.) No.5480 of 2025] has observed that in the matters of personal liberty, the High Courts are not expected to keep the matter pending for such a long time and do nothing, except for adjourning from time to time. 10. It appears that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the matter. Therefore, by the efflux of time, it seems to have been rendered infructuous. 11. The instant case is the misuse of process of Court by the applicant. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court declines to entertain this bail application. The application is, accordingly, rejected. April 23, 2026 Shalini BAIL No. 20929 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad