Senior Advocate Again Rebuked By Supreme Court For Making False Assertions

Months after the Supreme Court expressed its dismay against a Senior Advocate, Rishi Malhotra, over repeated instances of material suppression in remission petitions, another bench today expressed a similar opinion after it came to light that he tried misleading the Court by falsely stating that the charges against an accused had not been framed on the basis of which a bail order was obtained. 

The Court did not pass any order today but is going to hear this matter the day after tomorrow. 

On March 7, the bench granted bail to an accused against whom the allegations are under Sections 376, 376(2),(N), 313, 417, 509 of the Indian Penal Code on grounds that charges are not framed against him yet. The Court considered that his bail was rejected by the High Court on October 24, 2024 and that he has already undergone more than four and a half years of incarceration.

Malhotra, appearing for the accused, subsequently filed a miscellaneous application seeking modification of the order in terms of the fact that charges had actually been framed against the accused when the order was passed.

At the outset, Justice Dhulia warned that he is already in trouble for repeated instances of misleading the Court and that he should have some sense of responsibility.

"Just read your application that the charges have been framed on 29.11.2024 only after the passing of the impugned 24.10.2024 order. Just see your synopsis...When did you file the petition? On 18 December [2024], till now the charges have not been framed? Don't argue like this...We said it[that the charges have not been framed] because you said it. You are already in a problem. You are repeating this problem...You are saying the charges have not been framed and charges were framed in November. It is wrongly stated. You are making it out as if this mistake is committed by this Court," Justice Dhulia remarked. 

One of the advocates for the Respondent stated that this is a "tactic" for obtaining the bail.

Justice Chandran orally remarked that the Senior Advocate has no sense of responsibility and said: "We are specifically asking you what is this statement made? You have a responsibility to see that the vet the petition before it has been filed. Counsel, we are asking you a question, whether you have a responsibility to settle the pleadings before you appear? Or at least, when you are briefed...why do you do this?"

Malhotra responded that this case was handed over by the State's Counsel and it was the State's Standing Counsel which had informed him that the charges against the accused has not been framed.

"Again this is the problem with you...you are in a habit of making it [wrong statements]. Do you want us to observe so many things against you? How can you justify this, this is black and white, found on oath. " Justice Dhulia responded. 

Case Details: SACHIN DILIP SAMBARE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA|MA 553/2025 in SLP(Crl) No. 935/2025

Pranav Krishna (Advocate on Record) and Jagrit Vyas appeared for the complainant