Bombay High Court

Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 January, 2024

Author: Sarang V. Kotwal

Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal

2024:BHC-AS:406



                                                    :1:                          23.aba-3699-23.odt


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3699 OF 2023

                   Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav                                 .... Applicant
                             Versus
                   The State of Maharashtra                                 .... Respondent
                                              ______
                   Mr. Shailesh Kharat, Advocate a/w. Ms. Sayyed Akhtar Jaha
                   for the Applicant.
                   Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for the Respondent-State.
                                              ______

                                                     CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

                                                     DATE    : 03rd JANUARY, 2024

                   P.C. :

1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in

connection with C.R.No.948/2023 dated 21.10.2023

registered at Dahisar Police Station, Mumbai under Sections

420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC. Subsequently, Section 466

of IPC is added.

2. The offence is extremely serious. The Applicant is

an Advocate. The first informant had approached her for

preferring an application for bail for her husband, who was

arrested by the Dahisar police in connection with their C.R. 1 of 9 Deshmane (PS)

:2: 23.aba-3699-23.odt

No.927/2021. The main offence was under Section 302 of IPC

against the informant's husband. The present FIR mentions

that the Applicant had assured the informant that she would

get bail of her husband and for that purpose had asked

Rs.65,000/- as her fees. In August, 2022, the informant paid

her Rs.65,000/-. After that on 11.8.2022, the Applicant

preferred the bail application. On 28.10.2022 the Applicant

called the informant telephonically and informed her that the

informant's husband was granted bail by the Presiding Officer

at Dindoshi Court for Rs.25,000/-. The first informant was

told the name of the Presiding Officer. The Applicant called

the informant to High Court for paying Rs.25,000/-. The

informant and her relatives came to High Court. They gave

Rs.25,000/- to the Applicant. The Applicant handed over a

sealed brown-paper envelope. The Applicant told them that

the envelope contained bail order and a receipt for

Rs.25,000/-. She told them to give that envelope to the

officers of Thane Prison.

3. Immediately on 29.10.2022, at about 9.00 a.m.,

2 of 9

:3: 23.aba-3699-23.odt

the informant and her relative went to Thane Prison and put

that envelope in the box meant for depositing the bail orders.

Till about 3.00 p.m. on that day, the informant did not get any

information about her husband. Therefore, she made further

enquiries. At that time, the officers from Thane Prison told her

that the envelope did not contain the receipt for Rs.25,000/-

and the documents were incomplete, therefore, her husband

could not be released on bail. The documents were returned

to her. The informant looked at those documents and found a

copy of the order passed by the Presiding Officer i.e. the

Additional Sessions Judge at Dindoshi; but the envelope did

not contain the receipt for Rs.25,000/-. The informant

contacted the Applicant but she gave evasive answers.

4. On 31.10.2022, the informant went to the

Applicant's office. The Applicant told them that the

documents were proper but because of the mistake of the

officers from the jail, the informant's husband was not

released. The Applicant again gave another envelope and

asked them to deposit it in the same box. On this occasion as

3 of 9

:4: 23.aba-3699-23.odt

well, it was not acted upon and the documents were returned.

5. Thereafter the informant met the Applicant in the

Court of Session at Dindoshi. Again the Applicant gave a

photocopy of the bail order and a copy of the receipt of

Rs.25,000/-. On 7.11.2022, again the informant went to

Thane Central Prison but this time also the informant's

husband was not released on bail. The Applicant told the

informant that somebody had complained against her husband

and, therefore, he was not being released on bail. The

informant got suspicious and checked the Portal of E-Courts.

She did not find the bail order. She went to the Registry of

Dindoshi Sessions Court. She was told that no such

documents, viz., the bail order and the receipt were issued

from their department. The informant realized that she was

cheated. She confronted the Applicant. At that time, the

Applicant tried to scare her by telling that the witnesses of that

particular case had complained against the informant's family.

The informant was satisfied that the Applicant was playing

mischief and she had cheated the informant, therefore, she

4 of 9

:5: 23.aba-3699-23.odt

lodged this FIR. The investigation was carried out. The

Applicant is apprehending her arrest.

6. Heard Shri Shailesh Kharat, learned counsel for

the Applicant and Smt Sharmila Kaushik, learned APP for the

Respondent-State.

7. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that

the document in question i.e. the purported bail order was not

acted upon and, therefore, no offence is made out. He

submitted that there was difference between the 'intent to

defraud' and 'intent to deceive'. There was neither any

wrongful gain to anyone nor any wrongful loss to another. It

cannot be said that the Applicant had acted dishonestly. He

submitted that, there was nothing to show that the Applicant

had acted 'dishonestly' or 'fraudulently'. Therefore, the offence

under Section 465 of IPC and all other aggravated forms of the

offence of forgery are not attracted in this case. Learned

counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Jibrial Diwan Vs. State of Maharashtra as reported

in (1997) 6 SCC 499 to support his contention to this effect.

                                                                              5 of 9





                                  :6:                       23.aba-3699-23.odt

8. Learned APP strongly opposed these submissions.

She produced the papers of investigation carried out so far.

The investigation papers include a copy of the bail order given

by the Applicant to the first informant which was a forged bail

order. Said bail order was purportedly passed on 22.10.2022

which mentions the Applicant's name as the Advocate for the

informant's husband Ishwar Naidu. That order was found to

be forged. The Presiding Officer named in that order had sent

explanation to the Principal District Judge, Sessions Court,

Dindoshi clearly stating that the said order was not passed by

him. In fact, the said bail application was decided by another

Additional Sessions Judge on 7.2.2023 and the application

was rejected. The order dated 7.2.2023 also mentions the

name of the present Applicant as the Advocate for the said

accused Ishwar Naidu (informant's husband).

9. Thus, all along, the Applicant was very much

aware that the informant's husband's bail application was not

allowed. It was ultimately rejected on 7.2.2023. But, even

prior to that no order was passed granting bail to the

6 of 9

:7: 23.aba-3699-23.odt

informant's husband. Inspite of that, on multiple occasions, the

Applicant knowingly gave forged order of bail regarding the

informant's husband. There was a reference to the receipt of

Rs.25,000/- as well. Both these documents are forged

documents beyond reasonable doubt even at this stage.

10. I am strongly disagreeing with the submissions

made by learned counsel for the Applicant that there was no

'dishonest intention' or 'fraudulent intention' on the part of the

Applicant. In fact, her act cannot be described in any other

manner but 'dishonest' and 'fraudulent'. The investigating

agency has now applied Section 466 of IPC as well, which

reads thus :

"466. Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc. Whoever forges a document or an electronic record, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.


                                                                                 7 of 9





                                    :8:                           23.aba-3699-23.odt


                               Explanation.--For the purposes of this

section, "register" includes any list, data or record of any entries maintained in the electronic form as defined in clause (r) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000)."

11. I do no agree with the learned counsel for the

Applicant that the act of the Applicant has not caused any

harm to any person. The facts show that the Applicant had

taken substantial amount from the informant. Though learned

counsel submitted that the said amount was subsequently

returned, it does not wash out the offence committed by the

Applicant. The informant could have pursued the bail

application of her husband in accordance with law. Due to the

acts of the Applicant, the informant had lost precious

substantial period. She was kept in the dark about the fate of

the bail application preferred before the Sessions Court at

Dindoshi. The informant and her family has suffered immense

mental trauma.

12. The ingredients of all the offences mentioned in

the FIR, including Section 420 of IPC, are clearly made out.


                                                                               8 of 9





                                    :9:                      23.aba-3699-23.odt

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.

13. No leniency whatsoever can be shown to the

Applicant. No words are sufficient to deprecate the practice

adopted by the Applicant, being an Advocate having

relationship with the litigant based on trust. This is not a case

where any kind of leniency can be shown to the Applicant at

this stage. 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