A Lawyer Is Accused Of Deceiving A Client Using Falsified Instructions, The Bombay High Court Refuses Him Anticipatory Bail
Last Updated on October 16, 2024 by Arti Kumari
While working on his 74-year-old client’s case, the attorney—who had previously been arrested for posing as an IAS officer—allegedly gave her bogus High Court orders.
Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu, a practicing attorney who is accused of forging High Court decisions and deceiving his elderly client in a property dispute, was denied anticipatory bail by the Bombay High Court on Monday. [State of Maharashtra v. Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu]
While rejecting pre-arrest bail, Justice RN Laddha emphasized the importance of in-custody questioning, saying,
“It is highly likely that there will be victims in similar situations.”
The 74-year-old informant in this instance alleges that Khatu falsified the results of court proceedings pertaining to her Alibaug property. She claims, in particular, that Khatu gave her fake High Court orders dated December 12, 2022, and October 17, 2022.
Under false pretenses, she claimed he gradually took ₹2.57 crore from her while promising to handle her legal issues. She discovered that the orders she was given were fake and that her cases had never been scheduled for hearing until she spoke with a new lawyer.
Khatu’s attorney said that the relevant stay order was actually issued by the Alibaug sub-divisional officer and that there was no clear mention of High Court decisions in any WhatsApp exchanges between Khatu and his client. She said that the informant had actually made up the aforementioned High Court orders.
She further argued that the ₹65 lakh he received from the client was valid, connected to a land transaction and other costs associated with the informant’s financial and legal affairs, such as customs charges and sales tax payments.
It was claimed that Khatu had agreed to pay ₹8 lakh and handled further civil and criminal cases for the informant. She emphasized that the informant had given Khatu a broad power of attorney, demonstrating her level of confidence in him and further refuting the accusations made against him.
On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor contended that Khatu had obtained ₹2.57 crore through fraudulent means, allocating the money to other accounts and asserting that he had obtained favorable decisions for the informant.
He claimed that witness statements showed that Khatu delivered these bogus orders, deceiving the informant about the status of her appeals, and he mentioned WhatsApp conversations that purportedly exposed Khatu’s role in creating the court documents.
The informant’s attorney emphasized Khatu’s prior criminal history, which included his 2016 arrest by the Delhi Police for posing as an IAS officer and making a false claim to be the Deputy Director of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
The Court emphasized the need for more research and came to the conclusion that the accusations represented a serious breach of trust.
“It is a serious infraction that erodes public confidence in the legal system to forge the Court’s ruling. Additionally, the investigation is still in its early stages and the applicant has criminal history.
The Court denied Khatu’s motion, stating that his release on pre-arrest bail would obstruct an efficient inquiry.
Khatu was represented by Advocate Pushpa Ganediwala, Advocate Amar Gharte, and Advocate Taiyaba Kazi.
Yogesh Dabke, an additional public prosecutor, represented the State.
Advocate Rizwan Merchant represented the informant, accompanied by Advocates Sanjana Pardeshi, Ramiz Shaikh, and Harshil Gandhi on behalf of Rizwan Merchant & Associates.
Case Title : Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu v State of Maharashtra
