Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Advocate Accused Of Cheating Client By Forging Bail Order
The Bombay High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to advocate Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav accused of cheating a client by presenting a forged sessions court bail order for her husband in a murder case. Justice Sarang V Kotwal observed that it is a serious offense extending beyond the immediate victim, affecting the public's faith in the legal system and thus, no leniency could...
The Bombay High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to advocate Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav accused of cheating a client by presenting a forged sessions court bail order for her husband in a murder case.
Justice Sarang V Kotwal observed that it is a serious offense extending beyond the immediate victim, affecting the public's faith in the legal system and thus, no leniency could be granted to the accused.
“This offence does not only cause harm to the victim in this case, but, it is also fundamentally detrimental to the entire legal system. This kind of offence corrodes the faith which the public has in the entire system. No leniency whatsoever can be shown to the Applicant. No words are sufficient to deprecate the practice adopted by the Applicant, being an Advocate having relationship with the litigant based on trust”, the court held.
The applicant, an advocate, was hired by the complainant to file a bail application for her husband, who was arrested under Section 302 of IPC. According to the prosecution, Jadhav assured her of securing bail and demanded Rs. 65,000 as fees for the same.
Subsequently, after the payment was made, Jadhav allegedly informed her that her husband had been granted bail by the Dindoshi Sessions Court, and asked her to pay an additional Rs. 25,000.
Jadhav allegedly handed over a sealed paper envelope and told the complainant that it contained the bail order and a receipt for Rs. 25,000. However, when the complainant deposited the documents at Thane Prison, where her husband is lodged, it was revealed that the envelope did not contain the expected receipt and the necessary documents for bail. Another envelope was given to her by Jadhav, but again her husband was not released.
When the complainant checked the e-courts portal and the Registry of Dindoshi Sessions Court, she was told that no such documents, viz., the bail order and the receipt were issued from their department. She lodged a complaint against Jadhav at Dahisar Police Station under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC. Apprehending arrest, Jadhav filed the present anticipatory bail application.
Advocates Shailesh Kharat and Sayyed Akhtar for the applicant argued that no offense was made out since the document, i.e., the bail order, was not acted upon. There was neither any wrongful gain to anyone nor any wrongful loss to another. They contended that there was a difference between 'intent to defraud' and 'intent to deceive' and that there was no dishonest or fraudulent intention.
APP Sharmila Kaushik for the prosecution opposed these arguments, presenting the forged bail order and highlighting Jadhav's knowledge of the rejection of the bail application. The judge denied passing such an order, and the bail application was eventually rejected by another judge on February 7, 2023, she said.
The court noted that both the bail order and the receipt are forged documents beyond a reasonable doubt even at this stage.
The court asserted that the act of the applicant was both dishonest and fraudulent. It noted that the applicant knowingly provided forged documents multiple times, causing a significant loss of time and mental trauma to the informant who was kept in the dark about the actual status of her husband's bail application.
The court rejected the claim that Jadhav's actions caused no harm. It was noted that Jadhav had received a substantial amount from the complainant under the pretext of securing bail for her husband. Although the counsel argued that the amount was later returned, the court asserted that this did not absolve Jadhav of the offense.
The court deemed custodial interrogation of Jadhav necessary to uncover any potential accomplices and to ascertain whether or not the offense was an isolated incident and rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Case no. – Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3699 of 2023
Case Title – Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra