Mumbai Lawyer Faces Serious Charges of Deception and Fraud in Bail Application Scandal, in a shocking turn of events, an advocate from Mumbai seeking anticipatory bail found herself on the wrong side of the law after being accused of forgery and deception in connection with a bail application. The case, registered at Dahisar Police Station under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and subsequently adding Section 466 of the IPC, has taken a serious turn, denying the applicant any leniency from the court. The accused advocate, whose name has not been disclosed, is alleged to have promised the bail of a woman’s husband, charged under Section 302 of the IPC. The complainant, who sought legal assistance, claims that she paid a substantial fee of Rs.65, 000 to the advocate, who assured her that the bail application was successful. However, subsequent investigations revealed a web of deception.
According to the complainant, after receiving the money, the advocate provided a sealed brown-paper envelope, claiming it contained the bail order and a receipt for Rs.25, 000, the remaining bail amount. The woman, trusting the advocate, followed instructions and submitted the envelope to Thane Prison. To her dismay, her husband was not released, and upon investigation, it was discovered that the documents were incomplete, and the bail order was forged. This marked the beginning of a series of fraudulent attempts, as the advocate continued to provide forged documents on multiple occasions. The complainant, realizing the deceit, confronted the advocate, who allegedly tried to scare her by claiming that witnesses had complained against her family. The aggrieved party promptly lodged a First Information Report (FIR), leading to a thorough investigation.
During the court proceedings, the advocate’s defense argued that there was no dishonest or fraudulent intention on her part. However, the court strongly disagreed, citing the clear evidence of forged documents and the advocate’s persistent attempts to deceive the complainant.
The court, in its decision, emphasized the seriousness of the offenses, stating that the advocate’s actions not only harmed the victim but also undermined the entire legal system. The court ruled against granting anticipatory bail, highlighting the necessity for the advocate’s custodial interrogation to uncover potential accomplices and similar instances of misconduct.
This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of trust and integrity within the legal system, and the severe consequences that legal professionals may face when those principles are compromised. As the legal proceedings unfold, the spotlight remains on the advocate, who now faces the full force of the law for alleged forgery and deception.
CASE NAME
Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav V.The State of Maharashtra
Mr. Shailesh Kharat, Advocate a/w. Ms. Sayyed Akhtar Jaha for the Applicant. Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for the Respondent-State.
NAME: NIDHI SINGH, BBA.LLB (h), COLLEGE: SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments