Factual Matrix 

In the case of Lakhan Pralhad Misal v. State of Maharashtra a request for bail about a case involving violations of Sections 307 and 299 of the Penal Code, 1860. In the present case, the applicant requested bail for crimes under Sections 307 and 299 of the IPC, and notice of this request was given to the State. The court emphasised that a different complainant’s attorney came on June 14, 2023, and that he was given time to get instructions. On the day of the hearing, it was abruptly made clear that an eyewitness affidavit had been filed in place of the injured party or complainant, who had objected to the grant of bail. The Court viewed this as a deceptive tactic utilised by the accused and their attorneys to obtain bail. Given that the applicant and the eyewitness were a couple, the court assumed that he had sent her to his lawyer to take the oath while keeping the injured party in the dark.

Observation of the Court 

Justice S.G. Mehare of the Bombay High Court noted improper conduct on the part of the attorneys representing the applicant and the witnesses, and he decided that the applicant’s behaviour was a good reason to deny the current bail plea.

The Court viewed the current case as an example of degrading the legal profession since the plaintiff had the upper hand while providing the client with result-driven services. The Court also called attention to the severe problem of deceiving the Court. As a result, the Court decided that the applicant’s behaviour was a good reason to deny the current bail application. The Court indicated that the applicant did not merit bail in addition to rejecting the instant motion.

Through the current order, the Court further informed the parties that both attorneys and Bar Association officers had appeared before it to request an unconditional written apology acknowledging their error and pleading with it not to refer the case to the Bar Councils of Maharashtra and Goa for fear that it might jeopardise their careers if an investigation were to be opened against them. As a result, the Court revoked the order mandating an investigation and response from the Bar Councils of Maharashtra and Goa.

CASE NAME – Lakhan Pralhad Misal v. State of Maharashtra, BA No. 913/2023