The Bombay High Court denied anticipatory bail to a lawyer who stands accused of deceiving a client. Allegations include falsely assuring the client that she had obtained bail for the client's husband and forging a session court order to support this claim.

Justice Sarang V Kotwal, a single-judge, noted that the act of deceiving the client not only caused harm to the victim but also undermined the integrity of the legal system.

The judge pointed out that this offense doesn't just harm the victim involved but also significantly undermines the foundation of the entire legal system. Such actions erode the trust that the public places in the integrity of the system as a whole. Advocate Hiral Jadhav, the bail applicant, was retained by the complainant (client) to facilitate the release of her husband, who was detained in connection with a murder case.

During August 2022, Jadhav guaranteed the complainant that she would secure bail for the client's husband. To initiate this process, Jadhav requested a legal fee of ₹65,000, which the complainant paid. Subsequently, Jadhav filed the bail application as promised. On October 28, Jadhav communicated via phone to the complainant, informing her that her husband had been granted bail.

She requested the complainant visit the High Court, where she handed over a packet. This packet allegedly contained the bail order, a receipt of ₹25,000 (purportedly the bail bond amount), and additional documents necessary for the husband's release from prison.

The next morning, the complainant deposited the envelope in a box outside the prison. However, by 3 PM, she had not received any updates regarding her husband's release. Upon inquiry with the prison staff, she discovered that the envelope lacked the expected ₹25,000 receipt and contained incomplete documents. Interestingly, they did find a bail order from a session court in the envelope. As per the complaint, this process repeated itself twice, with advocate Jadhav attributing the delay to alleged errors by the prison authorities.

Growing suspicious due to her husband's continued detention, the complainant took proactive steps. She investigated by checking the e-courts portal, where she found no record of a bail order favoring her husband. Furthermore, upon inquiry with the session court registry, she discovered that no documents or receipts had been issued as claimed by advocate Jadhav.

Case Brief: Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra