Gujarat High Court: While hearing an application for anticipatory bail, wherein the accused was allegedly a law student posing as advocate andhad swindled over Rs 80 lakhs, the Single Judge Bench of P.M. Raval, J., emphasising on the seriousness of the allegations and need for custodial interrogation to uncover the extent of the offence and identify other victims, denied bail
Also Read why Madhya Pradesh HC quashed anticipatory bail of brand counterfeiting case
Background
The accused sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(4), 319, 336(2), 340, 351(2) and 61(2), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), wherein she had been accused of posing as an advocate and swindling a sum of Rs 80 lakhs. The prosecution case was based on materials recovered during investigation, including a visiting card identifying the accused as an advocate, an alleged Bar Council identity card bearing an enrollment number, a register containing case details, a name board describing her as an advocate of the Supreme Court of India, police station seals, notarial seals, and registers.
Counsel for the accused contended that she had been falsely implicated with malicious intent and had no knowledge of the alleged offence. It was argued that the complaint was based on incorrect allegations and a fabricated narrative, and that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The accused, being a final semester LLB student working as a junior intern, had neither appeared before any court nor filed any vakalatnama. It was further submitted that no specific role was attributed to her and that the complaint had been filed to avoid payment of fees.
Opposing the plea for anticipatory bail, the prosecution argued that incriminating materials recovered during the investigation clearly reflected that the accused was posing as an advocate. It was further submitted that statements of victims corroborated the allegation that a significant amount had been fraudulently obtained by the accused and other accused persons acting in connivance.
Analysis and Decision
The Court, while considering the application for anticipatory bail, observed that prima facie material indicated that the accused was posing as an advocate despite not having completed her LLB degree. The recovery of various items, including identity documents, professional paraphernalia, and official-looking seals, supported the prosecution’s case at the preliminary stage. The Court also took note of the statements of multiple victims and the magnitude of the alleged financial fraud.
The Court stated that:
“It transpires that a noble profession of advocacy cannot be allowed to be tarnished in such a like manner. Thus, custodial interrogation would be required to reach to the roots of the alleged offence and involvement of the other persons, if any, and to trace out the sum of Rs 80,00,000 which is alleged to have been swindled by all the accused in connivance with one another.”
Relying on the principles governing anticipatory bail as laid down in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, the Court concluded that the accused had failed to establish any exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected. The Court also declined the request to stay the operation of the order to enable the accused to approach the Supreme Court.
[Sadhu Falguni Miteshkumar v. State of Gujarat, Crl. M.A No. 5522 of 2026, decided on 8-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Accused: Bakul S. Panchal, Mansi S. Panchal, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Chintan Dave, APP
