Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to an advocate who wrongfully claimed to have secured bail for a client's husband and forged a sessions court order.

A single-judge bench, led by Justice SV Kotwal, heard a pre-arrest bail plea filed by the lawyer who was booked under Sections 420 (cheating), 465, 467, 468 (forgery), and 475 (counterfeiting document) of the Indian Penal Code.

The high court while denying anticipatory bail to the advocate noted that the offence is fundamentally detrimental to the entire legal system.

“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,” the order reads.

Advocate Hiral Jadhav, the applicant, was hired by the complainant to secure bail for her husband in a murder case. In August 2022, the complainant paid Rs. 65,000 to Jadhav for securing bail.

In October 2022, Jadhav informed the complainant that she had secured bail for her husband and asked her to provide Rs. 25,000 as the bail amount.

Jadhav then handed an envelope to the complainant, which allegedly contained Rs. 25,000 and the bail order, instructing her to deposit it with the prison authorities.

After the complainant deposited the amount with the prison authorities, she discovered the next day that her husband had not been released. This process was repeated twice, yet the complainant's husband remained incarcerated.

Jadhav explained to the complainant that the jail authorities had made an error in not releasing her husband.

Growing suspicious, the complainant checked the e-portal and discovered that there was no order granting bail to her husband; in fact, the sessions court had rejected the bail. Consequently, she filed an FIR against the advocate.

Jadhav subsequently approached the high court seeking anticipatory bail. However, the prosecution opposed the application, asserting that Jadhav had forged the order of another judge from the sessions court who had not heard the bail plea.

Consequently, the high court rejected the anticipatory bail plea, emphasizing that no leniency should be shown to the applicant.

“No leniency whatsoever can be shown to Jadhav. No words are sufficient to deprecate the practice adopted by Jadhav, being an Advocate having relationship with the litigant based on trust. This is not a case where any kind of leniency can be shown to the Applicant at this stage. Her custodial interrogation is necessary to find out her accomplices. The manner in which the offence is committed with confidence shows, there is a strong possibility that this may not be an isolated instance," the order states.

Case title: Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra