Bombay High Court grants bail to Mumbai lawyer accused of kidnapping client for unpaid legal fees

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday granted bail to Mumbai lawyer Vimalchandra Umeshchandra Jha, who was arrested in connection with a First Information Report (FIR) accusing him of kidnapping and torturing his client for unpaid legal fees. (Vimal Umeshchandra Jha v. State of Maharashtra). An FIR was registered against Jha for offences under Sections 364A (extortion for ransom) 365 (kidnapping to illegally confine), 387 (fear of death by extortion), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.According to the FIR, Jha had kidnapped his client Navnath Gole to pressurise him to pay Rs. 3 crores, who had availed the Jha's legal services when he was arrested in connection with a legal dispute stemming from a business transaction..Justice Sarang V Kotwal also made a prima facie observation that though the investigation was still in progress, "at least some serious doubt is created about the occurrence of the incident as narrated in the FIR". The medical papers mentioned about a particular grievous injury which was a hairline fracture, however there was no mention about this in the FIR, which according to the Court created sufficient. doubt about this particular head injury.From a bare perusal of the investigation papers and the submissions of the counsel, Justice Kotwal observed that the FIR was lodged by Gole "after he had composed himself and had sufficient time to gather his thoughts" and proceeded to grant bail..The Court ordered the lawyer's release on bail bond of Rs. 1 lakh with one or two sureties. The applicant was also directed to deposit his passport with the Investigating Officer before being released on bail.He was further directed to attend the office of investigating agency twice a week till filing of the charge-sheet and then once every month for a period of one year after filing of chargesheet..Advocate Subhash Jha appearing for the applicant argued that after he was arrested at dawn of April 3, 2021 and kept in detention illegally, he was never produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours and thus on that ground alone deserved to be released on bail.Jha submitted that Gole was allegedly taken to five different public places with CCTV footage available at some of these places and yet there was neither evidence of pressure on Gole nor explanation as to why Gole did not try to seek help in any of these public places."It also does not stand to reason that an abducted victim would be taken to a crowded place like Big Bazar." Justice Kotwal observed.He also observed that the FIR did not mention about the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the applicant and Gole in which an alleged transaction of Rs. 50 lakhs took place which was not a small amount and yet was missing from the FIR."Therefore there is definitely something more to the entire story than meets the eye. and reasonable doubt is created in respect of the allegations." Justice Kotwal noted..Advocate Hemant Ingle appearing for Gole submitted that the issue of illegal detention was pending before the Division Bench of the High Court and before a decision is not arrived, it could not be a ground for bail.He also submitted that the legal fees which had been demanded by the applicant had been paid by Gole's wife.The Court however noted that there seemed to be no direct or indirect evidence except oral submissions to substantiate this argument..Additional Public Prosecutor JS Lokhare opposed the application stating that soon after the applicant was arrested, he was infected with COVID-19 and had practically not spent any time in the jail.She submitted that after the investigation was transferred to the State Crime Investigation Department some opportunity ought to be granted to the new investigation agency to interrogate the applicant.Further the period of 90 days for filing the chargesheet was soon going to be lapsing and the prosecutor requested that the applicant be detained till the chargesheet is filed.However the Court expressed its disinclination to consider this request as the applicant had suffered from COVID-19 infection and admittedly had a kidney related issue since birth and granted bail..[Read order]