Justice Sarang Kotwal remarked that the lawyer’s purported deception of her client, falsely claiming the bail plea’s dismissal, not only harmed the victim but also posed a threat to the integrity of the legal system.
The Bombay High Court recently declined to provide pre-arrest bail to an attorney accused of deceiving a client. The lawyer allegedly falsely asserted that she had obtained bail for her client’s husband and fabricated a sessions court order to support the claim [Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra].
Justice Sarang V Kotwal, serving as the sole judge, noted that deceiving the client not only harmed the individual affected but also posed a threat to the legal system.
“This wrongdoing doesn’t just harm the victim in this particular instance; it fundamentally undermines the integrity of the entire legal system. Such actions erode the trust the public holds in the system,” commented the judge.
The applicant seeking bail, advocate Hiral Jadhav, had been retained by the complainant (client) to obtain bail for her husband, who was imprisoned in connection with a murder case.
In August 2022, Jadhav reassured the complainant of securing bail for the client’s husband and requested ₹65,000 as legal fees for this purpose, which was duly paid. Subsequently, the bail application was submitted.
On October 28, Jadhav informed the complainant via phone that her husband had been granted bail.
She directed the complainant to visit the High Court, where she handed over a package believed to contain the bail order, a receipt for ₹25,000 (representing the alleged bail bond amount), and other purportedly necessary documents for the husband’s release from prison.
The complainant then deposited this envelope into a box located outside the prison the following morning.
However, by 3 PM, she hadn’t received any updates about her husband. Seeking information from the prison staff, she was informed that the envelope lacked a ₹25,000 receipt and contained incomplete documents. Yet, a bail order from a sessions court was discovered.
According to the complaint, this process repeated twice after advocate Jadhav claimed that an error had occurred with the prison authorities.
As the husband remained incarcerated, the complainant grew suspicious. She investigated the e-courts portal but found no bail order in favor of her husband. Additionally, inquiries made with the sessions court registry revealed no records of issuing such documents or a receipt.
Following this event, a complaint was lodged against Jadhav under Sections 420 (cheating), 465, 467, 468 (forgery), and 475 (counterfeiting document) of the Indian Penal Code.
Subsequently, Jadhav petitioned the High Court seeking anticipatory bail. She contended that there had been no wrongful gain or loss to anyone involved.
The prosecution opposed the application, highlighting Jadhav’s forgery of a sessions court order.
The sessions judge, whose name appeared in the falsified order, refuted having issued any such order in a report submitted to the Principal District Judge.
It was discovered that another sessions judge had indeed issued an order in February 2023 regarding the matter, but it was a denial of bail for the complainant’s husband.
Justice Kotwal from the High Court commented that the lawyer’s actions seemed ‘dishonest’ and ‘fraudulent’.
The judge argued that even if the ₹25,000 had been refunded, it didn’t absolve Jadhav of the offense committed by withholding information about the status of the bail application from the complainant.
He further stated that Jadhav’s actions warranted no leniency.
“Jadhav cannot be granted any leniency. Words fail to condemn Jadhav’s conduct, especially as an Advocate entwined in a relationship of trust with the litigant. This situation does not allow any leniency for the Applicant at this juncture. Her custodial questioning is imperative to uncover potential associates. The way the offense was executed confidently suggests it might not be an isolated incident,” Justice Kotwal stated when denying the anticipatory bail plea.
