Forging Court’s Order Is A Severe Violation That Undermines Public Trust: Bombay HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Advocate Accused Of Misleading Elderly Client
The Bombay High Court denied anticipatory bail to an advocate, who is facing serious allegations of fabricating High Court orders and misleading an elderly client in a property dispute.
The allegations originated from a 74-year-old informant, who contended that the lawyer misrepresented him about the outcomes of legal proceedings related to her property in Alibaug. She claimed that he presented her with forged High Court orders. Over time, she alleged he extracted a total of ₹2.57 crore from her by assuring her that her legal matters were being handled properly. It was only when she consulted a new attorney that she discovered the purported orders were fraudulent and that her cases had never been scheduled for a hearing.
A Bench of Justice RN Laddha emphasized the necessity for custodial interrogation, noting the potential existence of other victims who may have experienced similar exploitation. It stated, “The possibility of there being similarly circumstanced victims is eminent.”
Advocate Pushpa Ganediwala appeared for the Petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor Yogesh Dabke appeared for the Respondents.
In his defense, advocate’s counsel argued that WhatsApp communications between did not specifically mention High Court orders, asserting that a legitimate stay order had actually been issued by the sub-divisional officer of Alibaug. Additionally, the defense contended that the ₹65 lakh received by him was connected to a legitimate land deal and various other expenses related to the informant’s legal and financial affairs, such as sales tax and customs duties.
The counsel for the informant brought attention to his previous criminal history, which includes arrests for impersonating an IAS officer and falsely claiming to be the Deputy Director of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), incidents for which he was arrested by Delhi Police in 2016.
The Court underscored the seriousness of the allegations, describing them as a significant breach of trust and highlighting the need for further investigation. The Court remarked, “Forging the Court’s order is a severe violation that undermines public trust in the legal system. Moreover, the applicant has criminal antecedents, and the investigation is at a nascent stage.” He determined that granting pre-arrest bail to him would obstruct an effective investigation and subsequently rejected his application.
Cause Title: Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., [2024:BHC-AS:40888]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Pushpa Ganediwala, alongside Advocates Amar Gharte and Taiyaba Kazi
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Yogesh Dabke, Advocate Rizwan Merchant, with Advocates Sanjana Pardeshi, Ramiz Shaikh, and Harshil Gandhi from Rizwan Merchant & Associates.
