VINAYKUMAR ASHOK KHATU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.308 of 2024, registered at Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Ss. 409, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The applicant, who claims to be a practicing Advocate, faces allegations from Mrs Urmila Dorab Talyarkhan, respondent No.2 herein. According to her, she engaged the applicant's legal services for various litigations, including a Second Appeal filed before the High Court. The informant alleges that she paid professional fees to the applicant periodically. It is further alleged that the informant filed the Second Appeal bearing (Stamp) No.22983 of 2022 through the applicant concerning a property in Alibaug. The applicant reportedly informed the informant that the High Court had issued a favourable order on 17/10/2022. Additionally, the applicant provided another order dtd. 12/12/2022, which purportedly allowed the Second Appeal filed by the complainant. The copies of these orders were handed over to the complainant by the applicant. However, when these orders were not acted upon, the informant became dissatisfied with the applicant's work and decided to change the Advocate. Upon consulting her new Advocate and checking the official Website of the High Court, she discovered that no such orders had been issued. The orders provided by the applicant were found to be forged and fabricated. It is further alleged that despite receiving substantial fees, the applicant failed to fulfil his duties as a lawyer and misled and cheated the informant by presenting bogus and forged orders of the High Court. Consequently, an FIR has been lodged against the applicant.

(3.) Ms Pushpa Ganediwala, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, argues that there has been a significant and unexplained delay in filing the FIR. The applicant managed the informant's legal matters from January 2022 to May 2024. During this period, there was no mention of the alleged order in favour of the applicant or the disposal of the Second Appeal in any communication between the applicant, the informant, or Navdeepkumar, the informant's purported friend. In fact, WhatsApp conversations show that until June 2024, the informant was still inquiring about the status of her Second Appeal against Tukaram and seeking updates on why it had not been listed on the court's cause list. Only after the applicant withdrew his power of attorney in June 2024 did this new narrative emerge, with the informant concocting a story and implicating the applicant. The learned Counsel contends that the informant herself fabricated the alleged High Court orders to support this false claim.