Gujarat High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Law Student Accused Of Posing As Advocate In ₹80 Lakh Swindling Case
She was booked for allegedly posing as an advocate in a case involving allegations that Rs.80,00,000 was swindled by the accused persons.
Justice P.M.Raval, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail to a law student, currently in the third year of her LL.B. course, who was booked for allegedly posing as an advocate in a case involving allegations that Rs.80,00,000 was swindled by the accused persons.
The applicant had sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR for offences under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
A Bench of Justice P. M. Raval observed, “Prima facie, it appears that while conducting panchanama at the Shop No.7D at Ground Floor in Narmada Plaza at Kadi and at the residence of Jadavjibhai i.e. the husband of the present applicant, at the same day, the visiting card reflecting name of the present applicant as an advocate is recovered; though the applicant is yet to complete her third year of LL.B., the card alleged to have been issued by the Bar Counsel of Gujarat with enrollment No.G/356-F/2019 in the name of the applicant is recovered; the register entering the case details is recovered; the board reflecting the name of the present applicant as an advocate of Supreme Court of India is also recovered; Kalol Taluka Police Station seals as well as the seals to utilize for notary and notarial register are also recovered. The various statement of other victims are also surfaces during the investigation. ”
Advocate Bakul S Panchal appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Chintan Dave appeared for the respondent.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that she was falsely implicated in the present case with malicious intention and had no knowledge of the alleged offence. It was further argued that the complaint was filed on the basis of wrong allegations and narrated story, pointing to delay in registration of the complaint and claiming that the applicant, a final semester LL.B. student working as a Junior Intern, had not appeared in any court or filed vakalatnama. It was also contended that no role is attributed by the present applicant and that the complainant lodged a “false complaint” to avoid payment of fees.
Opposing the application, the prosecution submitted that materials recovered during investigation included an identity card issued by the Bar Council of Gujarat, a name plate describing the applicant as an advocate of the Supreme Court of India, seals of police stations, notarial seals and registers, and other items reflecting her as an advocate. It was further submitted that statements of other persons revealed that in all till today sum of Rs.80,00,000/- are siphoned by the present applicant and other accused.
Emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations, the Court held, “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 other victims’ in all 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 laid down in Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others, reported in (1980), the Court concluded that no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail and found no exceptional ground to exercise discretionary jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the application was rejected. The Court also refused the applicant’s request to stay the order to approach the Supreme Court.
Cause Title: Sadhu Falguni Miteshkumar v. State Of Gujarat, [2026:GUJHC:24681]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Bakul S Panchal, Mansi S Panchal
Respondent: Advocate Chintan Dave