Supreme Court Grants Bail To Woman Accused Of Misrepresenting As An Advocate And Duping Clients
It was alleged that she took an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs as a retainer and demanded an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs as her fees to appear in the Supreme Court for the Informant.
The Supreme Court has granted bail to a woman accused of posing as an Advocate and duping clients.
The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is made out. We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct as under: “The appellant shall be produced before the concerned trial Court as early as possible and the trial Court shall release her on bail, subject to such conditions as it may deem appropriate to impose to ensure her presence in the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 34/2020 mentioned above.”
AOR Prastut Mahesh Dalvi appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Varad Kilor appeared for the Respondent-State
Facts of the Case
The Appellant was booked for the crime registered with respect to offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). The present appeal was filed challenging the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court, whereby the High Court refused to enlarge the Appellant on bail.
The facts of the case, as discerned from the FIR, are that the First Informant is a builder. He has several litigations and proceedings pending before various Courts in Mumbai including this Court. His nephew was acquainted with the Appellant. She misrepresented herself as a lawyer practising in the Supreme Court and also gave her visiting card to show that she was a Legal Consultant.
She lured the First Informant through his nephew to engage her as a lawyer to represent him in the Supreme Court and before the various other Courts in Mumbai. For the said purpose, she took an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs as a retainer and also demanded an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs as her fees to appear in the Supreme Court for the First Informant. The First Informant along with his other associates, had meetings with the Appellant and engaged her to represent him and his firm in various litigations.
It was also alleged that when the First Informant was facing problems pertaining to the supply of electricity to his various projects, the Appellant represented to him that she knew the Minister concerned in the State of Maharashtra and she assured to take up the issue with the Minister himself. Ultimately, it was revealed that the Appellant is neither a lawyer nor did she ever have a law degree.
The High Court had ordered, “The offence is a serious offence. The applicant has misrepresented herself as a legal practitioner to lure the First informant to part with an amount of Rs. 51 lakhs towards part payment of her alleged professional fees. Admittedly, she is neither an advocate nor does she have a degree of LLB… the Applicant is a habitual offender and has not thought twice before accepting payment for retainers from gullible and vulnerable litigants who are already facing the trauma of legal proceedings pending before various Courts.”
Contention of the Parties
The counsel for the Appellant emphasized that she is an elderly woman, nearly sixty years of age, who has remained in jail since January 29, 2024. It was argued that the trial has been progressing tardily, with only eight out of twelve witnesses examined so far and no clear timeline for its conclusion. Furthermore, the counsel pointed out that the offences charged carry a maximum punishment of seven years or less. Given these factors, along with the assertion that the Appellant has a strong case on the merits with bright chances of acquittal, the counsel requested that the impugned order be set aside and bail be granted.
Per contra, the Counsel for the State and the impleaded Respondent argued against the grant of relief. They submitted that the Appellant had misrepresented herself as an Advocate despite lacking the necessary legal qualifications. They further alleged that she had duped numerous individuals by claiming she could secure legal relief for them, leading victims to pay her "huge sums of monies" as professional charges. Based on these circumstances of alleged misrepresentation and fraud, the respondents maintained that the appeal should be dismissed.
Observations of the Court
The Court ordered, “It is directed that the appellant shall extend complete cooperation in the trial of the instant case. The appellant shall not misuse her liberty in any manner. Any infraction of the conditions may entail in cancellation of bail granted to the appellant. With these observations, the appeal is allowed.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Poonam Charandas Khanna v. State of Maharashtra [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.21380/2025]
Appearances:
Appellant: Advocate on Record Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, Advocate Pranay Saraf, Advocate Vidhi Pankaj Thaker.
Respondent: Advocate on Record Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocate on Record Shibu Devasia Olickal, Advocate Varad Kilor, Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate Shrirang B. Varma, Advocate K.Gireesh Kumar.