The Bombay HC orders interrogation on advocate for fraudulent activities while issuing bail.
TITLE : Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav v The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Sarang V. Kotwal
DATE : 3rd January 2024
CITATION : Anticipatory bail application No. 3699 of 2023
FACTS
The applicant was seeking anticipatory bail under Section 420, 466 ,465, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC. The offence committed was considered to be extremely serious. The main offence was punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The applicant is a lawyer who has assured the informant of the crime that a bail would be granted and took Rs.65000 as fees. The presiding officer upon receiving application has given bail for Rs.25000. Subsequenlty, the amount was paid by the informant. The prison officials at thane told the informant that the envelope did not contain the receipt for 25000 and the documents were incomplete. The applicant then sent another envelope which was not returned for. The same was done for twice again. Upon enquiry, the informant realized she was being cheated by the applicant.
LAWS INVOLVED
Section 466 of IPC :
- Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.
Whoever forges a document or an electronic record, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
ISSUES
Whether the applicant is guilty of the offence under Section 466 of IPC
JUDGEMENT
The court disagreed with the contentions of the counsel of the applicant that there was no fraudulent intention. “In fact, her act cannot be described in any other manner but ‘dishonest’ and ‘fraudulent’. The court said that the informant could have pursued the bail application of her husband accordance with law.
The court stated that being an advocate the applicant must not have cheated the informant and held that no leniency can be shown. The court further observed that there might be a strong possibility of a continuous offence and ordered for custodial interrogation against the applicant.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran