The Gujarat High Court dismissed anticipatory bail to a law student accused of impersonating an advocate and misappropriating around Rs.80 lakh from multiple victims. The Court remarked, “It transpires that a noble profession of advocacy cannot be allowed to be tarnished.”
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by a law student accused of impersonating an advocate and allegedly misappropriating about Rs.80 lakh from multiple victims.
The Court remarked that,
“It transpires that a noble profession of advocacy cannot be allowed to be tarnished in such a like manner.”
The applicant, Sadhu Falguni Miteshkumar, had sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with FIR C.R. No. 11206020260116 of 2026, registered at Kadi Police Station, District: Mahesana.
The accusations include offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(4), 319, 336(2), 340, 351(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
The prosecution’s case is that the applicant, along with other accused persons, allegedly portrayed herself as a practising advocate in order to defraud the complainant and others of substantial sums of money.
Learned advocate Mr. Bakul S. Panchal argued that the applicant was falsely implicated with malicious intent and that she had no knowledge of the alleged offences.
He submitted that although the incidents were said to have occurred between January 22, 2025 and February 1, 2026, the complaint was registered only on February 1, 2026, which he contended was unexplained delay.
Counsel also stated that the applicant is a law student in her last semester of LL.B. and works as a junior intern.
It was argued that she had not filed any vakalatnama or appeared in court, and that her work was limited to revenue- and document-related activities. The defence further claimed that the complainant lodged a false complaint to avoid paying fees after the applicant helped refer the dispute to be settled “short out” between the parties.
Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Chintan Dave opposed the bail request, arguing that the investigation produced several incriminating materials.
These included:
- An identity card issued by the Bar Council of Gujarat showing an enrollment number in the applicant’s name;
- A nameplate describing her as an “Advocate of the Supreme Court of India”;
- Seals of various police stations, notarial registers, and seals reportedly used by a notary; and
- A handbag and calendar bearing her name as an advocate of the High Court, along with mail, WhatsApp, and phone contact details.
The prosecution also submitted that statements of other victims who came forward after the FIR indicated that a total of Rs.80,00,000 was allegedly siphoned by the applicant and the other named accused.
Justice P. M. Raval examined the FIR, the application record, and the investigation papers. The Court noted that, during a panchanama conducted at a shop in Narmada Plaza and at the applicant’s husband’s residence, several items were seized including the enrollment card (G/356-F/2019), case registers, and police station seals despite her being a law student.
The bench emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to trace the “roots of the alleged offence,” identify other persons allegedly involved, and determine the manner in which the Rs.80,00,000 was reportedly swindled by the accused in connivance with one another.
ALSO READ: Courts Blamed Unfairly: Delhi High Court Slams Lawyers for Frequent Adjournments
The Court also assessed the request in light of the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 665, and concluded that no grounds were made out for exercising discretionary relief.
The Court held that it found no exceptional circumstances to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application was rejected, and the Rule was discharged. The applicant’s counsel’s prayer to stay the order pending challenge before the Supreme Court was also declined.
Case Title: Sadhu Falguni Miteshkumar vs. State of Gujarat