Advocate, His Wife Allegedly Withdraw Over 10 Lakh From Client's Account Dishonestly: Patna High Court Refuses Bail To Advocate
The Patna High Court on Wednesday denied bail to an Advocate who, along with his wife, has been accused of dishonestly withdrawing over 10 lakh money which belonged to his clients (husband-wife) as compensation money on account of the death of their only son.The Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad denied him bail as it noted that the Advocate had allegedly indulged in withdrawing the...
The Patna High Court on Wednesday denied bail to an Advocate who, along with his wife, has been accused of dishonestly withdrawing over 10 lakh money which belonged to his clients (husband-wife) as compensation money on account of the death of their only son.
The Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad denied him bail as it noted that the Advocate had allegedly indulged in withdrawing the money, thereby committing a breach of trust being an attorney and that he wasn't even ready to return the money.
The case in brief
Appellant/Advocate moved High Court challenging the order of rejection of his bail application by Additional District & Sessions Judge – 1st, Buxar in connection with a case registered against him u/s 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Advocate/accused had been accused of taking advantage of his position as an Advocate of the victims/claimants by encashing two Cheques and withdrawing a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- and 52,000/-, from the joint account of Sri Lalan Pasi, his clients.
His wife, accused number 2, too, withdrew a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- by encashing another Cheque from the said account. However, she has been granted bail.
Significantly, this amount was awarded as compensation by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Branch to Lalan Pasi and Sanjhariya Devi on account of the death of their only son Gorakh Pasi under Section 125 and Section 16 of Railway Act.
In that case, the clients were represented by the appellant/accused as advocate before the Tribunal.
Court's observations
Having looked into the seriousness of the allegations and the severity of the punishment in such cases of misappropriation of money and breach of trust, the Court asked the Advocate for the appellant as to whether he would be ready to return the entire amount which he had encashed from the joint account of his clients.
To this, he informed the Court that after his release on bail, he was willing to return a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs only.
Further, the Court repeatedly cautioned his counsel that being an Advocate, the appellant must come out with a fair stand, however, since there was no change of stand, the Court denied him bail by observing thus:
"In such circumstance, where this Court has noticed from the materials on the record that the appellant being an Advocate has indulged in this practice and the allegation is that of committing a breach of trust being an attorney and the appellant is not ready to return the money which belonged to his clients as a compensation money on account of death of their only son, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order."
The Court also directed that a copy of the order be sent to Bihar State Bar Council, Patna for bringing to their notice the kind of allegations against the petitioner and appropriate action which the competent authority of the Bihar State Bar Council may take in accordance with the law.
Case title - Santosh Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar
Read Order