The Bombay High Court has rejected the pre-arrest bail plea of an advocate who was booked for allegedly forging high court orders and cheating a Delhi-based client to the tune of Rs2.3 crore.
The court noted that in such cases, custodial interrogation is essential to fully uncover the extent of the fraud, including the money trail and the persons involved. Also, the possibility of there being similarly circumstanced victims is also eminent, the HC said.
The HC rejected the pre-arrest bail plea of Vinaykumar Khatu, 42. He approached the HC after his pre-arrest bail plea was rejected by the sessions court.
A case was registered against the lawyer with Azad Maidan police station for allegedly forging a high court order and allegedly cheating Urmila Talyarkhan, who hired him in several legal proceedings since 2014.
Talyarkhan claimed that she had engaged Khatu in various legal proceedings including a high court case related to a property in Alibag. She said Khatu had told her that the Bombay High Court had granted favourable orders on October 17, 2022 and on December 12 2022. However, when the orders were not acted upon, she decided to change her advocate. The new advocate informed her that no such orders had been passed, and what Khatu had shown her was allegedly fabricated. She then filed a police complaint.
Kahtu’s advocate Pushpa Ganediwala submitted that he had never talked about favourable orders. She argued that Khatu received only Rs65 lakh in his account. She submitted a WhatsApp chat which revealed that Rs30 lakh was paid towards sales tax, and Rs60 lakh was paid towards customs duties. Moreover, the Khatu also handled 29 other legal matters for the informant, including civil, criminal, revenue, sales tax, and property-related cases.
Talyarkhan’s lawyer, Rizwan Merchant, however, argued that Khatu had several cases registered against him, which came to light when a background check on him was run. Merchant also stated to the court that Khatu had been booked earlier for posing as an IAS officer, by the police in Delhi and in Kottayam, Kerala.
State’s advocate Yogesh Dabke argued that his custodial interrogation is necessary, given the case’s seriousness.
Justice RN Laddha noted that Khatu’s custodial interrogation is essential. “The possibility of there being similarly circumstanced victims is also eminent. Additionally, the applicant has criminal antecedents. The release of the applicant on pre-arrest bail would impede the course of effective investigation,” Justice Laddha added.
Rejecting Khatu’s plea, the judge said: “Caution is necessary, as granting protection in serious cases could potentially hinder investigation or lead to miscarriage of justice by allowing tampering with evidence.”
