Last Updated on October 28, 2023 by News Desk
Introduction:
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court upheld the denial of bail for an individual who posed as a lawyer, swindling a client through false promises and intimidating tactics. Justice KK Ramakrishnan dismissed the appellant’s plea against his conviction, stating that the special judge had rightly denied bail in the interest of society.
Issues:
The case revolved around the appellant, Rajasekharan, who deceitfully presented himself as an advocate and a press reporter to a client, assuring a quick resolution to a land dispute case within two months. Rajasekharan received a substantial sum of Rs. 3 lakh as an advocate fee, only to vanish from the legal proceedings. As a result, the suit was decreed exparte, leaving the client in a dire situation.
Reasoning:
The de facto complainant’s ordeal did not end there. When he demanded repayment, Rajasekharan resorted to criminal intimidation, using the client’s caste name, causing severe mental distress and necessitating medical treatment. Subsequently, the complainant filed a police report under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
The court also discovered that Rajasekharan had a history of similar cheating cases, preying on vulnerable individuals by posing as a media representative and an RTI activist. Despite Rajasekharan’s assertion that he had surrendered and spent almost 50 days in prison, the complainant vehemently opposed his plea for bail.
Arguments:
The court observed that Rajasekharan had committed grave offenses, publicly abusing the complainant with caste-based slurs, falsely claiming to be an advocate, and refusing to refund the ill-gotten fee. Drawing upon established legal precedent regarding bail applications, the court concurred with the special judge’s decision to reject the bail request, safeguarding the interests of society.
Conclusion:
The Madras High Court’s decision to deny bail to Rajasekharan reflects a strong stance against those who exploit their positions and engage in deceitful activities, especially when they involve fraudulent representation and intimidation. The ruling underscores the importance of upholding justice and protecting the rights of individuals who fall victim to such unscrupulous practices.
Written — Athi Venkatesh
