PURUSHOTHAMAN vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU

The Supreme Court examined the legality of the High Court's decision to cancel the bail of an appellant in a case under the POCSO Act due to adjournment requests. The Court emphasized that courts have discretion to refuse adjournments on untenable grounds and can appoint an advocate to represent the appellant if the appointed advocate refuses to argue. The judgment underscores the importance of ensuring fair trial proceedings while maintaining judicial discipline. The Court ultimately upheld the High Court's decision, reinforcing the authority of appellate courts in managing adjournments and representation.