Bombay High Court directs District Judge to inquire into lawyer's alleged professional misconduct [READ ORDER]

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court ordered a preliminary inquiry against a lawyer for allegedly suppressing facts from the Court in a bail proceeding (Swapnil Shankarao Ramteke v. The State of Maharashtra).

. The applicant Swapnil Ramteke, accused under offences of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, had approached the High Court after Additional Sessions Judge RR Patare had rejected his bail application.

Additional Public Prosecutor NR Rode informed Justice Rohit B Deo that Ramteke had however filed a successive bail application which was pending before Additional Sessions Judge SR Trivedi without disclosing about the earlier bail rejection.

. After making queries with Ramteke and his brother, Advocate Mir Nagman Ali representing Ramteke in the High Court informed the Court that Rode's submission was in fact true.

He, however, pointed out that the second application had been filed by Ramteke's lawyer representing him in the Sessions court "without instructions".

"Neither the applicant (Ramteke) nor his brother had been informed before filing the successive application," Ali submitted.

Ali also submitted that the application had purportedly been signed only by the lawyer and not by Ramteke or his brother.

. Upon this submission, Justice Deo remarked that "if what is submitted is factually correct, serious issues of profession misconduct and/or contemptuous attempt to subvert the administration of justice may arise" .

Having said so, he opined that without a preliminary enquiry, making any further observation would not be fair.

. Justice Deo directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur to inquire into the matter and submit a report by July 30, 2021 at 2.30 pm with a photocopy of the entire record of the first and second applications.

The District Judge was directed to record a prima facie finding whether the successive application was preferred without instructions and whether the entire facts are disclosed.

. "Recently, while dealing with an unrelated matter, I was constrained to record strong reservations and disapproval of the unhealthy and indeed contemptuous practice of Bench hunting/forum shopping by filing successive bail applications before different Judges/ Courts without disclosing the requisite details," Justice Deo's order stated.

. Justice Deo was referring to a recent order in which he had refused to grant bail to a murder accused after it came to light that he had fraudulently obtained bail from sessions court by suppressing material facts and imposed Rs. 50000 as penalty.

"Applicant had secured the bail by hoodwinking the system and merrily walked out of the prison a free man," were some of the observations he had made.

.Bail secured by murder accused by hoodwinking the system, suppressing facts: Bombay High Court imposes Rs. 50,000 costs. [Read order]

Bombay High Court directs District Judge to inquire into lawyer's alleged professional misconduct [READ ORDER]

Neha Joshi

Related Stories