The Allahabad High Court has ordered initiation of contempt proceedings against advocate Sri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra for making alleged scandalous remarks in open Court during the hearing of Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5069 of 2026.
Justice Santosh Rai passed the order on February 12, 2026, while hearing the bail plea filed by Kunal against the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Background of the Case
Sri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra appeared for the applicant. Sri Purushottam Maurya represented the State as learned AGA.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Investigating Officer had falsely implicated the applicant. He also argued that the officer had not recorded the statement of the injured. The learned AGA admitted that although police registered the FIR on January 19, 2026, the Investigating Officer did not record the statement of injured Yash Jain during the investigation.
According to the FIR, the injured sustained a firearm injury on his chest.
After hearing both sides, the Court directed the learned AGA to file a counter affidavit within three weeks. The affidavit must include the complete medical evidence, the injury report, and the statements of the injured and the doctor. The Court granted one week thereafter for filing a rejoinder affidavit. It then listed the matter as fresh on March 10, 2026.
Conduct Recorded by the Court
Soon after dictating the order, Sri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra raised his voice in open Court. The order records that he stated:
“Why are you calling for a counter affidavit in this case? You do not have the courage to seek explanation from the concerned Investigating Officer who, till date, has not recorded the statement of the injured. You (Judge) have no authority to pass any order against the Investigating Officer. It appears that you are working under the pressure of the Government.”
Justice Rai observed that the language, tone, and body language were highly objectionable, scandalous, and derogatory. According to the Court, the conduct tended to lower the authority and dignity of the Court in the eyes of those present.
Court’s View on Contempt
The Court held that the conduct prima facie amounted to “criminal contempt” under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The remarks, the Court said, scandalised the Court and interfered with the administration of justice. As a result of the advocate’s conduct, proceedings remained stalled for about ten minutes.
Justice Rai concluded that the matter required consideration for initiation of contempt proceedings. Therefore, the Court directed that a separate reference be made under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the relevant Rules of the Court. The Registry must place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
Further Directions
The Court released the bail application. It directed the office to list the matter before another Bench at the earliest after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice.
