Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai: In the present case of Lawyer cheating client, the informant stated that she had engaged the applicant as an advocate for looking after her 12 cases and some property matters and alleged that the applicant swindled Rs 2.57 crore from her by giving her fabricated orders of the Bombay High Court. Thus, the applicant filed the present application for a grant of bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. A Single Judge Bench of V.G. Raghuwanshi, Additional Sessions Judge, opined that the applicant was a practicing lawyer with standing for more than 20 years and so it was presumed that he knew and understood the sanctity of his profession and the services he rendered to society and his clients. The Court, after considering the seriousness of the allegations and antecedent of the applicant, who already had two offences registered against him for misrepresenting himself as an IAS Officer, rejected his criminal bail application.
Background
One Draupadi Patil sold her agricultural land by a sale deed to Kailash, who further sold it to the informant by a sale deed. Later, a man claiming to be Draupadi’s legal heir filed a suit, claiming that both the sale deeds were illegal. The trial court prohibited the informant from creating third party interest in the land and the informant, being aggrieved by the said order, approached the District Court. The first appeal was dismissed by the District Court as the advocate who represented the informant did not appear on the date of the hearing. The informant was not aware of this order as the advocate did not inform her, and she came to know about it only in 2022.
The informant was acquainted with one more advocate, who introduced her to the applicant, and she appointed the applicant as her advocate in six matters. The applicant charged Rs 10 lakhs per case and so the informant transferred Rs 2 crore to the applicant’s account. Thereafter, the informant filed a second appeal before the Bombay High Court on the applicant’s advice and filed an application for condonation of delay of four years and one more application for grant of stay in the said appeal.
The applicant told the informant that the High Court admitted her second appeal and so he handed over the order to her and won her confidence. The applicant asked the informant for Rs 30 lakhs if she wanted to get an order in her second appeal, therefore, she transferred Rs 30 lakhs to the applicant’s account.
The applicant visited the informant’s house and informed her that the High Court passed an order in her favour and gave a copy of the said order to her. She trusted the applicant and transferred a total of Rs 2.3 crore to him, but he failed to file a suit against her husband about cheating. Therefore, she went to another advocate to seek advice, who told her that copies of the orders sent to her were fabricated. Thus, she alleged that the applicant gave her fabricated copies of the orders and represented that those copies were genuine and induced her to pay huge amounts by winning her confidence and then cheated her. Thereafter, she checked the High Court’s website and realized that there was not even a single hearing in the second appeal filed by her, thus, she filed a report.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the allegations against the applicant were that he handed over copies of two orders allegedly passed by the Bombay High Court to the informant, thereby winning her confidence and duping her of Rs 2.57 crore. The Court also noted that the informant’s allegations were supported by her driver in whose presence the said orders were given to the informant and told her that the District Court’s order had been stayed/set-aside.
The Court referred to the WhatsApp chats wherein the applicant in his chat with accountant, had stated about the stay granted by the Bombay High Court, and it was clear that after the date of the fabricated orders, huge amounts were transferred to his and his friends/associates accounts.
The Court stated that the applicant was lawfully appointed as the informant’s lawyer and was doing a lot of tasks for the informant. The Court opined that the applicant was a practicing lawyer with standing for more than 20 years and thus, it was presumed that he knew and understood the sanctity of his profession and the services he rendered to society and his clients.
The Court relied on Naveen Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 6 SCC 191, wherein the Supreme Court observed that “If the Court record is manipulated and/or forged, it will hamper the administration of justice. Forging/manipulating the Court record and taking the benefit of the same stand on altogether a different footing than forging/manipulating other documents between two individuals. Therefore, the High Court ought to have been more cautious/serious in granting the bail to a person who is alleged to have forged/manipulated the Court record and taken the benefit of such manipulated and forged court record more particularly when he has been charge-sheeted having found prima facie case and the charge has been framed”.
The Court took note of the applicant’s antecedent and stated that two offences were already registered against the applicant for misrepresenting himself as an IAS Officer. The Court opined that if it exercised its discretion in the applicant’s favour, then it would give a wrong message to society. Thus, the Court, after considering the seriousness of allegations and antecedent of the applicant, rejected the criminal bail application of the applicant.
[Vinay Kumar Ashok Khatu v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Bail Application No. 399 of 2025, decided on 3-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: Advocate Aniket Nikam a/w Advocate Kaushalya Patil, Advocate Smita Sonawane, Advocate Vaishali Rajkarne i/b Pushpa Ganediwala and Company for the Applicant/accused.
For the Respondent: APP Ajit Chavan for State; Advocate Rizwan Merchant a/w Ramiz Shaikh for the intervenor/victim.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
