In a case exposing a brazen alleged fraud on the justice system itself, the Gujarat High Court came face-to-face with a troubling question: what happens when the very tools of law, enrollment cards, court seals, and notarial registers, are allegedly weaponised by someone not yet qualified to wield them? The case of a law student-turned-intern, accused alongside her husband of cheating multiple victims out of nearly Rs.80 lakh by posing as a practising advocate, placed the court squarely in the centre of a controversy that strikes at the integrity of the legal profession.
The controversy began when a First Information Report was lodged on February 1, 2026, at Kadi Police Station, District Mahesana, naming the applicant, an LL.B. final-semester student working as a junior intern, along with her husband and others, under serious provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including charges of cheating, criminal conspiracy, and fraud. Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Bakul S. Panchal, argued vigorously that his client had been falsely implicated, contending that she merely assisted with revenue and documentation work under her advocate brother-in-law, never filed a Vakalatnama, and never appeared in court.
He further pointed out that the FIR itself revealed money was demanded by the first accused, her husband, and that the complainant had voluntarily paid Rs.3,27,000 in cash, suggesting the complaint was driven by a reluctance to pay legitimate fees rather than any genuine fraud. The defence painted the picture of a young woman unfairly caught in her husband's alleged dealings.
The State, however, told a starkly different story: investigators had recovered from the applicant's premises an identity card purportedly issued by the Bar Council of Gujarat bearing an enrollment number in her name, a nameplate declaring her an advocate of the Supreme Court of India, seals of multiple police stations, notarial seals and registers, and promotional material, visiting cards and a calendar, all marketing her as a practising lawyer. Statements from multiple additional victims had since emerged, with the total alleged sum swindled across the accused reaching ₹80 lakh.
The Court, after carefully examining the FIR, the investigation papers, and the arguments on both sides, found the material recovered during the panchanama at the applicant's shop and residence deeply incriminating. Noting the gravity of what the investigation had surfaced, the bench made a pointed observation that cut to the heart of the matter, "It transpires that a noble profession of advocacy cannot be allowed to be tarnished in such a like manner." The Court held that custodial interrogation was essential, both to uncover the full network of involvement and to trace other potential victims of the alleged Rs.80-lakh fraud.
Testing the application against the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in the landmark ruling of Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others, the Court concluded that no case had been made out for the grant of anticipatory bail. A last-minute oral request by the applicant's counsel to stay the order to enable a challenge before the Supreme Court was also turned down.
Case Title: Sadhu Falguni Miteshkumar Vs. State of Gujarat
Case No.: R/Criminal Misc.Application (For Anticipatory Bail) No. 5522 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice P. M. Raval
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Bakul S Panchal, Adv. Mansi S Panchal
Advocate for the Respondent: APP Chintan Dave
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://www.alisonslawavenues.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/advocate-robes.jpg
