The Bombay High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by an advocate in connection accused of giving forged order of bail to his client.

A Single Bench of Justice Sarang V. Kotwal observed that “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.

Advocate Shailesh Kharat represented the applicant while APP Sharmila S. Kaushik appeared for the respondent.

The advocate had telephonically informed her client that she had secured bail for her husband. The client handed Rs.25,000/- to the advocate and received a sealed brown-paper envelope, which the advocate claimed to contain a bail order and a receipt of the potion of fee received. The client was instructed to deliver the envelope to Thane Prison officers who later revealed that her husband could not be released since the envelope had incomplete documents and there was no receipt of money too. Despite contacting the advocate several times, the client received evasive answers.

The Court disagreed with the submissions made by the advocate that there was no ‘dishonest intention’ or ‘fraudulent intention’ on her part. The Court stated that her act cannot be described in any other manner but as ‘dishonest’ and ‘fraudulent’. The Court noted that “No words are sufficient to deprecate the practice adopted by the Applicant, being an Advocate having relationship with the litigant based on trust.

The Court also disagreed with the advocate’ argument that her actions caused no harm stating that she had received a substantial amount from the client, and although it was claimed to have been returned, it doesn't negate the offence. The client suffered mental trauma and lost precious time due to the advocate’s acts.

The Court held that “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.”

Subsequently, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.

Cause Title: Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra

Click here to read/download the Judgment