The Allahabad High Court has recently clarified that obtaining a "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) from a previous counsel is merely a matter of good practice and not a mandatory requirement for a new counsel to appear and press a bail application. In a case involving a convict represented in a dowry death matter, a new lawyer engaged by an NGO sought bail even though the earlier counsel refused to sign or issue an NOC. The Court observed that the new counsel — though unable to obtain the NOC — had filed a valid vakalatnama (power of attorney), duly executed by the appellant (from jail), and verified by jail authorities.
The Court noted that the prior refusal by the earlier counsel to grant NOC did not invalidate the vakalatnama or bar hearing of the bail application. It emphasized that in criminal cases involving liberty, the accused has a fundamental right under constitutional provisions and procedural law to be represented by a lawyer of their own choice. The Bench pointed out that the statutory law, namely the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), does not require filing of a vakalatnama for every bail application; what matters is that the advocate is authorized by the accused through some form of authorization.
In the present case, the new counsel had all necessary authorizations, and the Court therefore heard the bail plea on merits. It examined the facts: the appellant had been convicted in 2021 in a dowry-death case and sentenced to life imprisonment. The bail application was based on the fact that the conviction was founded largely on a presumption (under section 113-B of the Evidence Act), with no eyewitness testimony. The Court also considered that connected appeals of other co-accused were still pending, which meant the convict might remain imprisoned for an indefinite period awaiting further proceedings. Taking these circumstances into account, the Court granted bail, staying the fine imposed by the trial court through the bail period.
The Bench commended the new counsel’s efforts, noting that she had taken up the matter pro bono on behalf of an NGO working for socially and economically backward litigants, especially women. Recognizing the public interest and sincere advocacy, the Court directed the High Court Legal Services Committee to pay her an honorarium.
This ruling thus establishes that lack of NOC from previous counsel does not automatically preclude a new, duly authorized counsel from representing a convict in bail proceedings. The Court underscored that the primary consideration must be the accused’s right to representation and liberty — and not mechanical adherence to formalities when authorization is otherwise valid.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.