Introduction:

In a recent case before the Bombay High Court, advocate Hiral Chandrakant Jadhav’s plea for anticipatory bail was dismissed. The advocate was accused of presenting a forged bail order for a murder case, leading to serious implications not just for the immediate victim but also for the public’s faith in the legal system. Justice Sarang V Kotwal, presiding over the case, highlighted the gravity of the offense, emphasizing its detrimental impact on the overall legal framework.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Advocates Shailesh Kharat and Sayyed Akhtar, representing Jadhav, argued that no offense was established since the forged document, the bail order, was not acted upon, resulting in no wrongful gain or loss. They attempted to distinguish between ‘intent to defraud’ and ‘intent to deceive,’ claiming the absence of dishonest or fraudulent intentions. However, APP Sharmila Kaushik for the prosecution countered these arguments, presenting the forged bail order and underlining Jadhav’s awareness of the rejection of the bail application. The prosecution stressed Jadhav’s repeated presentation of forged documents, causing mental trauma to the complainant.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Kotwal ruled that the act of presenting forged documents by Jadhav was both dishonest and fraudulent. The court found the bail order and receipt to be forged beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted the significant loss of time and mental trauma inflicted on the complainant due to Jadhav’s actions, even if the monetary amount received was later returned. The court emphasized the necessity of custodial interrogation to unearth potential accomplices and ascertain if the offense was an isolated incident. Consequently, the court rejected Jadhav’s anticipatory bail application, affirming the need for further investigation.