The Bombay High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu, a 42-year-old lawyer accused of forgery, cheating, and criminal breach of trust. The case, registered under CR No. 308 of 2024 at the Azad Maidan Police Station, involves serious charges under Sections 409, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, and 474 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court’s decision reflects the gravity of the allegations, which accuse Khatu of fabricating court orders and misappropriating funds.
Allegations of Forged Orders and Fraud
The complainant, Urmila Talyarkhan, alleges that Khatu provided her with forged High Court orders related to a Second Appeal regarding her property in Alibaug. According to Talyarkhan, Khatu falsely claimed that the appeal had been decided in her favor and handed over two orders dated October 17, 2022, and December 12, 2022. However, when the orders were not implemented, Talyarkhan became suspicious and consulted a new lawyer, who discovered that the orders were fabricated.
The complaint further alleges that Khatu charged substantial fees for legal services and misappropriated ₹2.57 crore by deceiving the complainant.
Defense Argues Delay and Fabrication
During the hearing, Khatu’s counsel, argued that the delay in filing the FIR casts doubt on the complaint’s credibility. She pointed out that Khatu had managed Talyarkhan’s legal matters from January 2022 to May 2024 without any issues. The allegations only emerged after Khatu withdrew his power of attorney in June 2024.
The defense also denied the misappropriation of funds, stating that only ₹65 lakh was transferred to Khatu’s account, while other payments were made toward taxes and customs duties. Ganediwala claimed that the complainant herself may have fabricated the story to implicate Khatu falsely.
Prosecution’s Case and Criminal History
The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), argued that Khatu’s custodial interrogation is necessary due to the severity of the offense. The APP stated that Khatu used forged orders to extract large sums from Talyarkhan and transferred the money to various accounts on his instructions.
The complainant’s counsel, emphasized that Khatu has a criminal history. He noted that Khatu had previously been arrested for impersonating an IAS officer in Delhi and Kerala. Merchant argued that Khatu exploited the complainant, an elderly woman with no heirs, and urged the court to deny bail to prevent further misuse of the legal process.
Court’s Decision and Implications
After hearing the arguments, Justice R.N. Laddha ruled that the allegations of forgery and fraud were too serious to ignore. The court noted that forging court orders undermines public trust in the judiciary and cannot be treated lightly. The judge also expressed concern that granting bail could impede the investigation and jeopardize justice.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application was denied.
Leave a Reply