A Mumbai court denied bail to a lawyer who forged Bombay High Court orders and posed as an IAS officer, stating it “cannot ignore the antecedents” and that granting bail would send a wrong message to society.
A sessions court in Mumbai has denied bail to a lawyer accused of defrauding his client of Rs.2.57 crore by providing her with forged orders that he claimed were issued by the Bombay High Court.
The court noted that the advocate’s previous criminal history and the seriousness of the allegations rendered him unsuitable for bail.
Additional Sessions Judge VG Raghuwanshi pointed out that the lawyer, Vinay Kumar Khatu, had been previously charged in Delhi and Kerala for posing as an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer.
The Court stated,
“This Court cannot ignore the antecedents of the applicant. Admittedly, two offences were registered against the applicant for misrepresenting himself as an IAS Officer. If this Court exercises discretion in favor of the applicant, it will give a wrong message to society. The seriousness of the allegations and the antecedents of the applicant prevent me from exercising discretion in favor of the applicant,”
According to the prosecution, the complainant, Urmila Talyarkhan, hired Khatu in 2022 to represent her in various civil and property disputes after discovering that a previous appeal in her land case had been dismissed due to non-appearance.
Khatu allegedly advised her to file a delayed second appeal before the Bombay High Court, assuring her that he would obtain favorable orders.
On October 17 and December 12, 2022, He reportedly provided her with two forged orders, claiming they had been issued by Justice SK Shinde of the Bombay High Court. These forged documents stated that her appeal had been accepted and the lower court’s decree had been stayed.
Also Read: [Assault on Pregnant Wife] UP Businessman Sentenced to Life
Believing the documents to be authentic, the complainant transferred a total of Rs.2.57 crore via RTGS to several individuals associated with Khatu, including his associates and employees.
The land dispute originated in 1998 when the complainant purchased agricultural land in Raigarh district. In 2003, a supposed legal heir of the original owner contested the sale.
A trial court ruled against the complainant, and her first appeal was dismissed in 2018 due to her lawyer’s failure to appear. She only learned of the dismissal in 2022 and subsequently hired Khatu.
When he failed to act in a separate case involving her estranged husband, she sought a second legal opinion. It was then discovered that the High Court orders he had provided were forged, and a review of court records indicated that the appeal had never been scheduled for a hearing.
Khatu’s counsel contended that the allegations were vague, the FIR was filed after a delay, and the complainant was an experienced litigant. He asserted that the payments were professional fees and that no further custody was necessary since the chargesheet had already been filed.
The prosecution argued that Khatu had exploited his fiduciary position to commit serious offences under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 467 (forgery of valuable securities, documents) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), using forged court orders that qualified as “valuable securities.”
The complainant’s counsel added that the forgery occurred in the presence of witnesses and that funds were funneled to Khatu’s associates, raising concerns about potential evidence tampering if he were released on bail.
In rejecting the bail application, the Court noted that the complainant’s allegations were substantiated by the testimony of her driver, who was reportedly present when the forged orders were handed over.
Also Read: Kerala High Court Grants Bail to Businessman Boby Chemmanur in Sexual Harassment Case
The court also highlighted that, as a practicing lawyer with over two decades of experience, the accused was fully aware of the integrity required in his profession. Therefore, granting him bail would be inappropriate given the seriousness of the allegations.
Advocate Aniket Nikam, along with advocates Kaushalya Patil, Smita Sonawane, and Vaishali Rajkarne, represented Khatu, instructed by Pushpa Ganediwala and Company.
Assistant Public Prosecutor Ajit Chavan appeared on behalf of the State, while Advocate Rizwan Merchant and Ramiz Shaikh represented the victim.
Case Title: Vinay Kumar Ashok Khatu v State of Maharashtra and Anr
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
