Allahabad HC Cancels Bail of Advocate-Accused Who Appeared in Court Defying His Own Undertaking, Refers Conduct to Bar Council of U.P.

An advocate accused of stalking a fellow advocate had his interim bail cancelled after he appeared before the court in violation of an express undertaking, and separately sent a personal application directly to the judge’s chamber seeking permission to enter court premises.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in an order dated 20 July 2026, cancelled the interim bail of an advocate named Vijay Singh Chauhan, who stood accused of stalking a woman advocate practising in the same court. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, sitting singly, found that the applicant had personally appeared before the court in direct breach of the undertaking he had given to secure that very bail. The court also found that the applicant had sent an application addressed personally to the judge in chambers, seeking leave to enter court premises — conduct the court characterised as prima facie an attempt to influence the judge and as interference with the administration of justice. The bail application was rejected and the matter was referred to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for a disciplinary enquiry.

The Allegations and the FIR

The case arises from Case Crime No. 320 of 2025 registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Prayagraj. The first informant, a lady advocate practising at the Allahabad High Court, lodged the FIR alleging that the applicant had continuously harassed and stalked her for approximately eleven months. The conduct alleged included persistently following and obstructing her, compelling her to enter into an engagement, making repeated unsolicited telephone calls and objectionable voice messages, defaming and character-assassinating her, intruding into her professional sphere, misrepresenting his identity before the court, and causing her mental distress, psychological trauma, and professional hardship.

Both the applicant and the first informant are advocates at the High Court. The specific acts included stopping the first informant while she was walking to the ladies’ toilet or in the court’s corridors, and attempting to contact her despite her expressed unwillingness.

The FIR was registered under Sections 75, 77, 78, 126(2), 229, 308(6), 319(2), 338, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the informant’s statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arrested the applicant, prepared an arrest memo, and collected electronic evidence including a pen drive, screenshots of chats, and voice messages. The informant’s statement was also recorded under Section 183 BNSS before the competent Magistrate. A chargesheet was subsequently filed.

The Mental Examination and Grant of Interim Bail

The court had earlier, on 26 February 2026, directed the Chief Medical Officer, Prayagraj to conduct a mental examination of the applicant and directed that the applicant be produced before the court by the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj. The mental status report, received pursuant to that direction, found that no psychiatric or neurotic illness could be detected and that the applicant’s mental state was sound.

On 16 March 2026, the court granted interim bail. At that stage, the applicant had been in jail since 6 August 2025 and the chargesheet had already been filed. The statement of the first informant had also been recorded before the trial court on 7 March 2026. The applicant appeared personally before the court, tendered an unconditional apology for his conduct, and furnished an undertaking that he would not contact the first informant in any manner — physically or through social media — and that he would not enter the High Court premises without the leave of the court.

The interim bail was granted subject to conditions including that the applicant shall not contact the first informant physically or through any social media platform, shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, shall cooperate in the trial, and shall not commit any criminal activity. The court also, noting that the first informant was a lady advocate who had expressed apprehension of harassment, directed the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj to provide her personal security until the next date of listing.

The Violations That Led to Cancellation

On 20 July 2026, when the matter came up, counsel for the first informant stated an intention to file an application for cancellation of interim bail on the ground that the applicant had already violated the bail conditions by entering the court premises, contrary to the undertaking he had given. Counsel for the applicant sought time to file a reply to any such cancellation application.

The court separately noted that an application had been received in the judge’s chamber, addressed directly to Justice Deshwal, in which the applicant sought permission to enter the court premises and to pursue his legal profession. The court strongly deprecated this conduct. It observed that an advocate is expected to know that if modification of a court order is sought, the proper course is to file an appropriate application before the Registry and not to address the judge directly. The court observed that this act was prima facie an attempt to influence the judge and may amount to interference with the administration of justice, though it declined to make further observations at that stage, as both sides had sought time to file affidavits.

Then, after dictation of the order was completed, the court found that the applicant was himself present before it — despite the specific undertaking that he would not appear before the court until the next date of listing, so that the victim would not feel intimidated. The court also noted that on an earlier occasion the victim had filed an application complaining of continuous violations of the undertaking.

Confronted with the applicant’s physical presence in open court on the very date on which a cancellation application was being proposed, and noting that his counsel was also present, the court found the cumulative conduct — the earlier violations, the direct chamber application, and the personal appearance that day — sufficient to cancel the interim bail immediately.

The Court’s Reasoning

Justice Deshwal held that the applicant’s presence in court on 20 July 2026 was in direct violation of his undertaking. The act of sending a personal application to the judge sitting in the bail roster further reflected on the applicant’s conduct. The court stated that it was surprised to find the applicant personally present, and that the combination of conduct warranted immediate cancellation rather than awaiting the filing of a formal cancellation application.

The court also directed that the personal security provided to the first informant shall continue not merely until the next listing but until the conclusion of the trial.

On the professional dimension, the court held that the applicant’s conduct was “contemptuous and wholly unprofessional.” As an advocate, he was held to a standard of knowing the proper procedural course when seeking modification of a court order. His act of bypassing the Registry and directly addressing the judge was treated as a serious departure from professional norms, warranting scrutiny by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.

Outcome

The court cancelled the interim bail granted on 16 March 2026. The applicant was directed to be taken into custody forthwith and handed over to the Station House Officer, Civil Lines, Prayagraj, who was directed to produce him before the Magistrate concerned for preparation of the requisite warrant and for sending him to jail. The bail application, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31738 of 2025, was rejected. The personal security of the first informant was directed to continue until the conclusion of the trial.

The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh was directed to conduct an appropriate enquiry into the applicant’s conduct and to determine whether he is fit to continue in the legal profession. The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate a copy of the order to the Secretary, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, and to the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj.