It is common practice among lawyers to seek an adjournment if they fail to convince a judge even after arguing their case at length. On the contrary, an advocate in the Madras High Court Bench here on Tuesday insisted on adjourning an anticipatory bail application by two days though the judge was inclined to grant the relief immediately.
Perplexed over the lawyer’s insistence on deferring the hearing, Justice P.N. Prakash said: “Sir, I am telling you that I will grant the anticipatory bail and you want an adjournment. What is this? The IO (investigating officer) is present here, the PP (public prosecutor) has obtained instructions, I am inclined to grant the bail but you don’t want an order from this court.”
Nevertheless, the lawyer refused to budge and remained adamant on getting the case postponed. Irked over his attitude, the judge said: “Please turn around and look at the huge number of policemen sitting here. On one hand we accuse the police of not catching the criminals and on the other we make them spend so much of their precious time inside court halls.
“It is utter waste of manpower. These men have come here to instruct the PP (public prosecutor) and assist the court in disposing of the cases. What is the point if you insist on adjournments, they cannot be asked to come back once again,” the judge said and adjourned the advance bail application to Thursday with a specific observation that the IO need not be present on that day.
He continued to pass similar orders in other cases too, whenever the petitioners’ lawyers sought an adjournment, and dispensed with the appearance of police officers on the next date of adjournment.
“It seems that you do not want even favourable orders. If that is the case, then so be it,” he told another advocate who also sought for a short adjournment.
