The Bombay High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to a lawyer accused of cheating a client by falsely claiming that she was able to secure bail for her client's husband and forging a sessions court order for the purpose [Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra].Single-judge Justice Sarang V Kotwal observed that such an act of cheating the client did harm not only to the victim but also the 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 judge observed.The bail applicant, advocate Hiral Jadhav, had been hired by the complainant (client) to secure bail for her husband who was incarcerated in a murder case.In August 2022, Jadhav assured the complainant that she would get bail for the client's husband and for that purpose asked ₹65,000 as legal fees. This was paid to Jadhav and the bail application was filed.On October 28, Jadhav telephonically informed the complainant that her husband had been granted bail.She asked the complainant to come to the High Court and handed over a packet which purportedly contained the bail order, a receipt of ₹25,000 (the alleged bail bond amount) and other documents that were said to be required for releasing the husband from prison.The complainant deposited this envelope in a box outside the prison the next morning.However, she did not get any information about her husband even at 3 PM. She checked with the prison staff who informed her that the envelope did not contain any receipt of ₹25,000 and that the documents were incomplete. They, however, did find a bail order from a sessions court.As per the complaint, this process was repeated twice after advocate Jadhav told the complainant that the prison authorities had committed an error.When the husband was still not being released from prison, the complainant got suspicious.She checked the e-courts portal and found no such bail order in favour of her husband. She also checked with the sessions court registry who denied having issued any documents or receipt.In light of this development, a complaint was filed against Jadhav under Sections 420 (cheating), 465, 467, 468 (forgery) and 475 (counterfeiting document) of the Indian Penal Code.Jadhav then approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail. She argued that there was neither a wrongful gain nor wrongful loss to anyone.The prosecution opposed the application pointing out that Jadhav had forged an order of the sessions court.The sessions judge (whose name was mentioned in the forged order) denied having passed any order in a report filed with the Principal District Judge.
It was found that an order indeed had been passed by another sessions judge in the matter in February 2023, but that it was an order rejecting the bail application by the complainant's husband.Justice Kotwal of the High Court remarked that the accused lawyer's act appeared to be ‘dishonest’ and ‘fraudulent’.The judge reasoned that even if the amount of ₹25,000 was returned, it did not take away the offence committed by Jadhav of keeping the complainant in dark about the fate of the bail application.He added that Jadhav's act deserved no leniency."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", Justice Kotwal held while rejecting the anticipatory bail application.
TAGS: Legal Analysis Arvind DatarInter Governmental Immunity
