"Degrading legal profession": Bombay High Court condemns two lawyers for misleading court, recalls disciplinary proceedings after apology

The Bombay High Court recently deprecated two lawyers and their respective clients for misleading the Court in a bail case. [Lakhan Prasad Misal vs The State of Maharashtra].Justice SG Mehare of the Aurangabad Bench opined that the case reflected the degradation of the legal profession. The judge also dwelt on how the litigant had overpowered the profession, and how lawyers, without concern for their own careers, were providing result-oriented services solely to please clients."The level of misleading the Court also reached the zenith. It’s a matter of serious concern. Whom to believe is a big question. Unfortunately, the newly entered junior lawyers are also involved in such practice by their seniors," the Court added..The case before the Court had involved a plea for bail in a case registered against the accused under Sections 299 (culpable homicide) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).On June 14, the complainant's counsel made an appearance and claimed that he had instructions to appear for the complainant. He was granted time to make his submissions and the case was listed for hearing on June 22.This counsel later filed an affidavit on behalf of an eyewitness instead of the complainant. Pertinently, in the affidavit, the eyewitness did not object to the grant of bail to the accused. .The Court, however, noted that the lawyer had received the affidavit in advance and concluded that this was an attempt to mislead the Court by the lawyers of the accused and the eyewitness in order to secure bail. Since the eyewitness and the complainant lived together, the Court inferred that the bail applicant's (accused) counsel had sent the eyewitness to his junior to swear in the affidavit, while keeping the complainant in the dark."This was the level of practice to mislead the Court to please the client," the Court remarked in its order..Though the applicant's lawyer explained that it was an inadvertent mistake, the Court stated that the facts did not support believing him. The judge also noted that his junior, who filed the affidavit, was unnecessarily brought into trouble. .The Court concluded that misconduct on the part of the lawyers was apparent and accordingly, referred the matter to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) for action against them for misconduct and for misleading the Court.The Court proceeded to opine that the lawyers' conduct was enough to reject the bail application. The accused did not deserve bail on merit either, the Court found. Accordingly, the plea was dismissed..Later, both lawyers appeared before the judge with the office bearers of the Bar Association and tendered their unconditional apology. They requested the Court to expunge its remarks and not refer the matter to BCMG..They also stated that it was their mistake and that their professional life may be ruined if an inquiry against them were to be conducted. .Considering this unconditional apology and the future of the junior lawyer, the Court recalled its order directing an inquiry and action for misconduct. However, the bench retained its earlier observations on record.The Court also made the written apology of the lawyers part of the record in a sealed packet..Advocate Abhaysinh K Bhosle appeared for the bail applicant. Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) VN Patil-Jadhav appeared for respondent-State Advocate Shardul G Shinde appeared for the complainant to assist APP Patil-Jadhav..[Read Order]