The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to an advocate involved in filing multiple bogus claims for compensation in motor accident cases [Vijaydatta Patil vs State of Maharashtra]..The Court was hearing a plea filed by an advocate accused of forging the documents for raising bogus claims before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation.Single-judge Justice Vibha Kankanwadi observed that the lawyer has defamed the entire legal fraternity by forging documents."An Advocate is the officer of the Court. No doubt, he pleads for his client, but he should be honest to the profession, towards Court as well as towards his client. Under such circumstance, for any such professional misconduct he is adopting forged documents or getting certain documents fabricated, then, he is rather defaming the entire fraternity of Advocates," the Court said..The accused, advocate Vijaydatta Patil, practicing in Osmanabad district, was booked for allegedly advising the family of a man to show involvement of another vehicle in the accident. The man had died after he negligently drove his own tractor and it overturned.Apart from Patil, the bench of Justice Kankanwadi was also petitioned by one Abhijeet Gaikwad, a police constable from Solapur district, booked for allegedly forging the documents by changing the number of the tractor involved in the accident.The Court had earlier taken suo motu cognizance of the filing of bogus claims in motor accidents claims tribunals by persons in connivance with police and advocates. A committee was formed for investigation regarding the same. Pursuant to the probe, hundreds of such bogus claims were unearthed and a probe had been ordered in all of them. The present matter was one such bogus claim..Gaikwad was alleged to have forged the probe papers of the accident by applying a whitener and changing the number of the tractor involved in the accident.The number was changed to gain monetary compensation as the deceased man in the case had died after his own tractor turned turtle and this wouldn't have qualified his family to seek compensation from insurance company.Accused Patil in the case, after learning that the deceased died of his own mistake and that he also didn't hold a licence, advised his family that for claiming compensation, some other tractor and driver holding licence will have to be shown as the negligent party. He had assured that he would manage everything including police, but the relatives will have to pay 20-25% of the commission of the accident compensation..Therefore, the deceased man's nephew handed over his own tractor's number and accordingly, the constable Gaikwad applied whitener to the medico legal documents of the case including the Inquest Panchanama."Panchas were again called and then their signatures were taken. The story was rebuilt and the wife of the deceased lodged the report on January 8, 2020 by including two persons as eye witnesses. The investigation was accordingly done and charge sheet was filed. In the inquiry, after the order in Public Interest Litigation No.3 of 2020 was filed, all these things have been revealed and, therefore, offence has been lodged," the judge noted in her orders dated April 28, 2022.Justice Kankanwadi further noted that such instances are on a rise."It will not be out of place to mention here that filing of such false cases are increasing. It is only with an intention to get more compensation. Note of such cases has also been taken by the Supreme Court. This court also taking into consideration the increase in such false cases had passed the said order in the Public Interest Litigation," the bench observed.The judge after considering the material on record, noted that Gaikwad being a police constable had no authority to investigate as per the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure and that he might have assisted the head constable, who is also an accused in the case.The bench, accordingly opined that since the documents bore the signatures of the head constable, the accused Gaikwad wouldn't have taken an active part in the case and thus granted him bail.As far as advocate Patil is concerned, the bench noted that he has filed around 314 such bogus claims before the tribunal in Osmanabad and accordingly refused to grant him bail."The offence alleged to have been committed by him is definitely serious. Whether custodial interrogation is required or not is one of the questions, but still whether with this kind of facts the Court should exercise extraordinary discretionary relief in favour of such person is a question and the answer would be definitely ‘in the negative’. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be released on anticipatory bail," the Court ruled..Advocates SJ Salunkhe and MV Salunkhe appeared for accused Patil and Gaikwad, respectively.Additional Public Prosecutor BV Virdhe represented the state..[Read Order]
