An Advocate with 22 years of legal practice approached the Gujarat High Court seeking regular bail after his anticipatory bail had earlier been rejected. He was accused of preparing forged documents that were allegedly used to fraudulently transfer agricultural land into his own name.

The applicant claimed that he had only rendered professional legal services and had done nothing beyond that.

The Allegations:

The case relates to a complaint filed by an overseas citizen whose property was allegedly sold using forged documents. According to the prosecution, the applicant, while acting as an Advocate, received money for tampering with the documents.

Bail Plea Rejected:

Before his arrest, the applicant had sought anticipatory bail, but the Gujarat High Court rejected that request. He was subsequently arrested. Later, after one of his co-accused was granted bail, the applicant again approached the High Court, this time seeking regular bail.

Court Finds Active Role:

The Gujarat High Court, however, refused to grant him bail. The Court observed that the applicant’s role was more serious than that of the other accused and found that he was the mastermind behind the alleged offence. It therefore held that he was not entitled to be released on bail and observed that, “the applicant has played an active role and he has not performed or rendered any professional service.”

Investigation Still Pending:

The High Court also noted that the investigation is still pending. It observed that if the applicant is released on bail, there is a possibility that he may tamper with the documents, which are important pieces of evidence.

Factors Considered:

While deciding the bail application, Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar considered several factors, including the nature of the allegations, the severity of the possible punishment, the material relied upon by the prosecution, the possibility of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the likelihood of securing his presence during trial, his character and conduct, and the larger public interest.

The Court noted the following factors: “(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.”

Supreme Court Cited:

Justice Suthar also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ash Mohammad vs. Shivraj Singh alias Lalla Babu and Other, observing, “The concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one and no element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is jeopardized.”

Strong Observation:

Rejecting the bail application, the Gujarat High Court made strong observations about the applicant’s conduct as an Advocate. The court observed:

“The Advocacy is a noble profession and the applicant has taken undue advantage of his knowledge and indulged himself in criminal activity.”

Case details: Jitendrasinh Narasinh Rathod Versus State of Gujarat