Mumbai court denies bail to lawyer who cheated client using forged Bombay High Court orders

A sessions court in Mumbai recently refused to grant bail to a lawyer who allegedly swindled ₹2.57 crore from his client by handing her forged orders which he claimed was passed by the Bombay High Court [Vinay Kumar Ashok Khatu v State of Maharashtra and Anr.].The court observed that the advocate’s prior criminal antecedents and the gravity of the allegations made him unfit for bail.Additional Sessions Judge VG Raghuwanshi noted that the lawyer, Vinay Kumar Khatu, had previously been booked in Delhi and Kerala for impersonating an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer. “This Court cannot ignore the antecedent of applicant. Admittedly, two offences were registered against applicant for misrepresenting himself as an IAS Officer. If this Court exercise discretion in favour of applicant it will give a wrong message to society. The seriousness of allegations and antecedent of applicant prevent me from exercising discretion in favour of applicant,” the Court stated..According to the prosecution’s case, the complainant, Urmila Talyarkhan, engaged Khatu in 2022 to represent her in a series of civil and property disputes after learning that a prior appeal in her land litigation had been dismissed for non-appearance. Khatu allegedly advised her to file a delayed second appeal before the Bombay High Court and assured her that he would secure favourable orders. On October 17 and December 12, 2022, he allegedly handed over two forged orders which he claimed had been passed by Justice SK Shinde of the Bombay High Court.The forged orders mentioned that her appeal was admitted and the lower court’s decree was stayed.Believing the documents to be genuine, the complainant transferred a total of ₹2.57 crore through RTGS to various individuals linked to Khatu, including his associates and employees..The land dispute dates back to 1998 when the complainant purchased agricultural land in Raigarh district. In 2003, a purported legal heir of the original owner challenged the sale.A trial court ruled against the complainant and a first appeal was dismissed in 2018 after her lawyer failed to appear. She became aware of the dismissal only in 2022 and subsequently engaged Khatu. Later, when he failed to act in a separate case involving her estranged husband, she sought a second legal opinion. It was then revealed that the High Court orders he had provided were forged, and a search of court records showed that the appeal had never been listed for hearing.Khatu’s counsel argued that the allegations were vague, the FIR was delayed, and the complainant was a seasoned litigant. He maintained that the payments were professional fees and no further custody was needed as the chargesheet had been filed. The prosecution countered that Khatu had abused 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 counsel for the complainant added that the forgery was done in the presence of witnesses and funds were routed to Khatu’s associates, raising concerns of evidence tampering if release on bail.While rejecting the bail plea, the Court observed that the complainant’s allegations were supported by the testimony of her driver, who was allegedly present when the forged orders were handed over. It further noted that as a practicing lawyer with over two decades of experience, the accused was fully aware of the sanctity of his profession, and therefore, granting him bail would be inappropriate in the face of such serious allegations..Advocate Aniket Nikam along with advocates Kaushalya Patil, Smita Sonawane, Vaishali Rajkarne instructed by Pushpa Ganediwala and Company appeared for Khatu.Assistant Public Prosecutor Ajit Chavan appeared for State.Advocate Rizwan Merchant along with Ramiz Shaikh represented the victim..[Read Order]