The recent decision by the Bombay High Court denying anticipatory bail to advocate Hiral Jadhav has drawn attention due to accusations of deceiving a client. The case, Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, revolves around allegations that Jadhav misled a client by falsely claiming to have secured bail for her husband while allegedly fabricating a sessions court order.
According to the court’s observations, Jadhav, hired by the complainant to arrange bail for her husband embroiled in a murder case, purportedly assured the client of securing bail and accepted ₹65,000 as legal fees. Subsequently, Jadhav informed the client of her husband’s bail approval and handed over an envelope, alleged to contain the bail order and necessary release documents.
The complainant, having doubts about the process, found no bail order for her husband on the e-courts portal. Upon investigation, it became evident that the document provided by Jadhav was counterfeit. Consequently, a complaint was lodged under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, and 475 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) due to the falsified document.
In seeking anticipatory bail, Jadhav argued the absence of any wrongful gain or loss. Despite this, the prosecution highlighted the forged sessions court order as evidence against her. Justice Sarang V Kotwal, presiding over the case, expressed concerns regarding the dishonest and fraudulent nature of Jadhav’s actions. The judge emphasized the necessity for custodial interrogation to explore potential accomplices.
Justice Kotwal underscored that the return of the ₹25,000 did not absolve Jadhav of misleading her client. Stressing the severity of breaching trust, especially given Jadhav’s profession as an advocate, the court rejected the anticipatory bail plea. The judge emphasized the need for further investigation, implying the possibility of additional individuals involved in the purported deception.
1. Section 420 : This section deals with the offense of cheating. It criminalizes actions where a person dishonestly induces another to deliver any property, alter a valuable security, or engage in any act that results in wrongful gain or loss to someone else.
2. Section 465 : This section concerns forgery. It encompasses making a false document or electronic record, with the intention to cause damage or injury to a person’s reputation or property.
3. Section 467 : This section specifically deals with forgery of valuable security, will, or authority to make or transfer any valuable security. It penalizes the making or altering of any document resembling a valuable security or will, intending to defraud or harm others.
4. Section 468 : This section extends the scope of forgery by dealing with forgery for the purpose of cheating. It covers the forging of a document, known to be false, with the intent to use it as genuine to cause injury or harm.
5. Section 475 : This section addresses counterfeiting documents or electronic records with the intent to commit forgery. It penalizes the act of making a false document resembling a valuable security or government stamp, intending to use it for committing forgery.
These sections collectively aim to prevent and penalize various forms of deceit, forgery, and counterfeiting of documents or valuable securities, intending to protect individuals and their property from fraudulent activities and maintain the integrity of legal and financial systems.
This ruling by the Bombay High Court signifies the gravity with which instances of legal deception are viewed within the legal system. It underscores the significant obligation of legal practitioners to uphold trust, integrity, and transparency in their professional conduct, especially when dealing with clients and legal proceedings.