The Gujarat High Court recently rejected an anticipatory bail plea filed by a final year law student accused of impersonating a Supreme Court advocate.
The accused was alleged to be part of a wider cheating racket in which multiple victims were defrauded of around ₹80 lakh by persons posing as legal professionals and collecting money under the guise of legal assistance.
In an April 8 order, Justice PM Raval underscored the seriousness of the allegations while refusing to grant the accused student anticipatory bail.
“It transpires that a noble profession of advocacy cannot be allowed to be tarnished in such a like manner. Thus, custodial interrogation would be required to reach to the roots of the alleged offence and involvement of the other persons, if any, and to trace out other victims’ in all sum of Rs.80,00,000/- which is alleged to have been swindled by all the accused in connivance with one another,” said the Court.
The case involves allegations that there was a network of people who projected themselves as legal professionals and collected substantial sums of money from unsuspecting clients under the guise of providing legal help.
A first incident report (FIR) registered by the Kadi police station in Mehsana district cited the offences of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust and related offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
During the investigation, the police recovered identity cards purportedly linked to the Bar Council of Gujarat, visiting cards, case registers, and seals used for notarial work and police stations. Statements of several victims were also recorded, with the total alleged fraud estimated at around ₹80 lakh.
Among those accused was a final year LLB student, who maintained that she has been falsely accused. She moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail, contending that she had no role in the alleged offence.
Her counsel argued that while she has worked as a junior intern, she never accepted any vakalatnama, nor appeared as an advocate before any court of law. Her counsel added that she merely assisted in revenue-related documentation through a relative, who is an advocate.
Further it was argued that a client who was reluctant to pay legal fees mistook her for a junior advocate and filed a false complaint against her.
The student's counsel also submitted that there was delay in lodging the FIR and that no specific role had been attributed to her.
Opposing the plea for anticipatory bail, the State submitted that the material collected during the investigation, upon preliminary analysis, appeared to show the accused student's involvement in the crime.
The State argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the money trail, identify other victims, and uncover the wider conspiracy.
Given the nature of allegations, coupled with the material recovered during the investigation, the Court eventually denied the student anticipatory bail. It reasoned that custodial interrogation was necessary for an effective investigation.
Advocates Bakul S Panchal and Mansi S Panchal represented the accused.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Chintan Dave appeared on behalf of the State of Gujarat.
Neutral Citation Number: 2026:GUJHC:24681