ORDER
Fakhruddin, J.
Heard.
1. It is noted that the application is not properly drafted and further that the application before Sessions Court has not been filed.
2. It is noted that in para 2 of the application it has been mentioned that the applicant had applied for his release on bail before the learned Lower Court which was rejected vide order dated 11-12-2001. Document perused. On perusal of the order, it shows that the order dated 11-12-2001 is of High Court. It is not of Lower Court. Counsel for the applicant has to be very careful in drafting and pleading. Since Counsel apologized, proceedings dropped.
3. Drafting and pleading has to be accurate. There should be no factual mistake. It is noted that Counsel has taken it very casually. An application containing incorrect averment does not render any assistance. In the instant case, where it is a second bail application, Counsel should have been more careful. Though there is no bar under the Code for filing successive applications, but the Courts have laid down principles which have got to be adhered and Counsel have to study.
4. It is stated that in this application one of the additional ground raised in regarding sickness. It is noted that no such application under ground of sickness has been filed before the Court where the trial is pending. If a person is sick or ailing and the ailment is such, which requires immediate treatment or grant of bail, on the ground that he cannot be suitably treated while in custody, then the application may be moved before the Court where the trial is pending. The Trial Court or Committal Court where proceedings are pending, being a local one, is in a better position to seek immediate report and may in suitable cases direct production of accused or production of documents from jail authorities as the situation may warrant and immediate orders may be passed. Nothing of this sort has been done in this case.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant admitted that no application for releasing the applicant on temporary bail on medical ground has been filed. Subsequent application has not been made before the Lower Court and the averment that it has been rejected on 11-12-2001 is incorrect statement made in the application filed before this Court.
6. The profession of law is an exalted profession. Due attention has to be paid by the Counsel in respect of pleadings and drafting. In fact, the Bar Council has now introduced one paper of pleadings and drafting. Continuing legal education in this respect is required. The pleadings and drafting specially in respect of an application for grant of bail for a person who is in jail has to be done with greatest care and caution and should not be inadvertent, vague or inaccurate. It is not the lawyer who suffers. Ultimately it is the person on whose behalf the application is filed and the relations thereto are the sufferers. Heavy duty lies on the Counsel and it is for this reason that this Court has repeatedly emphasized that the cases should be filed with due care and caution. In M.C.C No. 48/2001 [2001(5) M.P.H.T. 58 (CG)] in reference to V.G. Tamaskar, this Court has laid down the principles. It is noted that in this case that certificate has also been filed at page No. 9 which is quoted below :–
CERTIFICATE
“It is certified that due care has been taken to comply with direction given by this Hon’ble Court in M.C.C. No. 48/2001 in reference to V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate’s case, decided on 14-12-2001, as far as possible.”
7. The certificate is required and it is not to be filed merely as a formality but has to be filed after complying with the requirements reiterated.
8. The Supreme Court in Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor and Ors. (reported in AIR 2001 SC 207) has put the profession to notice about the duties and held that “it is unjust and inequitable to cause the party alone to suffer for the self-imposed dereliction of his Advocate. The Apex Court while dealing with non-appearance observed that “we may further add that the litigant who suffers entirely on account of his Advocate’s non-appearance in Court, he has also the remedy to sue the Advocate for damages but that remedy would remain unaffected by the course adopted in this case. Even so, in situations like this, when the Court mulcts the party with costs for the failure of his Advocate to appear, we make it clear that the same Court has power to permit the parly to realize the costs from the Advocate concerned. However, such direction can be passed only after affording an opportunity to the Advocate. If he has any justifiable cause the Court can certainly absolve him from such a liability. But the Advocate cannot get absolved merely on the ground that he did not attend the Court as he or his association was on a strike”. In the present case, though the petition is filed but without care and caution.
9. Having noted the inadvertent pleadings and wrong averments
made, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing further on the merits of the case or merits of the sickness, this application is disposed of with liberty prayed for to file proper application in accordance with law.
10. Counsel for the applicant apologized and reiterated at the Bar that the apology is sincere and from bottom of heart. Since Counsel apologized, the matter is dropped here with a warning that the Counsel has to be very careful while drafting and pleading in future and should not give any further opportunity like the one which occurred in this case.
11. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.