Rejection of bail plea due to absence of lawyer is violative of Article 21: Allahabad HC Justice Ajay Bhanot's bench noted that "legal aid was elevated as a fundamental right by constitutional courts even before it was enshrined as a statutory right by the legislature under the Legal Services Authorities Act." In this case, the issue for consideration before the bench was: Should the bail application be dismissed for non-prosecution or should an amicus curiae be appointed to represent the applicant and the matter be heard on merits? The bench said that the right to bail is derived from law but cannot be separated from constitutional oversight. The High Court observed that legal aid is an essential instrument to secure the stated objective of justice to all citizens. The national capacity to deliver equitable justice is bounded by the institutional capacity to provide legal aid. Legal aid was elevated as a fundamental right by the constitutional courts even before it was enshrined as a statutory right by the legislature under the Legal Services Authorities Act. The bench said that special care should be taken by the lawyer in bail applications as the applicant is in jail and the lawyer is his only representative before the court. The time-honored traditions of the noble profession gave the prisoner's lawyer an unconditional duty to be present at the bail hearing. It is immaterial whether the professional remuneration of the advocate has been paid or not. Non-appearance of lawyer in bail hearing can also lead to misconduct. The High Court observed that “….It has been a practice for the efficient administration of justice to dismiss a litigant for non-prosecution by the courts since long. This practice is good and has proven its effectiveness in weeding out unnecessary cases that clog up the legal system. No litigant has the right of unlimited draft at the time of the court. It can also be inferred from the absence of the lawyer that Liss is not alive, or that the plaintiff does not want to prosecute him. Dismissing such cases for default enables the judicial system to keep live cases in which plaintiffs are interested on the courts' dockets. The bench observed that the rejection of bail application for non-prosecution due to absence of a lawyer is impermissible, as it is contrary to the rights of prisoners to legal aid under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and violates the fundamental rights of prisoners . Guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, the High Court allowed the bail application. Case Title: MANISH PATHAK v. STATE OF UP Bench: Justice Ajay Bhanot Case No.: Criminal Mis. Bail Application Number – 18536 of 2020.