Mumbai: Sessions Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To 42-Year-Old Lawyer In ₹62 Lakh Fraud Case

Mumbai: The sessions court has refused anticipatory bail to advocate Vinaykumar Khatu, 42, in a cheating case amounting to Rs 62 lakh. A case has been registered against the lawyer with Azad Maidan police station for allegedly forging a high court order and allegedly cheating a woman who hired him in several legal proceedings since 2014, to the tune of Rs 62 lakh.

Khatu has now approached the Bombay High Court for anticipatory bail and for quashing of the case. His petitions are yet to be heard by the high court.

'District Collectors Have Powers To Issue Blanket Closure Order For Liquor Shops For Specific Time': Bombay HC

About The Case

The complainant, Urmila Khan, claimed that she had engaged Khatu in various legal proceedings including a high court case related to a property in Alibag. She said Khatu had told her that the Bombay High Court had granted favourable orders on October 17, 2022 and on December 12 2022. However, when the orders were not acted upon, she decided to change her advocate.

From the new advocate, she learnt that no such orders had been passed, and what Khatu had shown her was allegedly fabricated. She then made a police complaint. Fearing arrest, Khatu moved the sessions court for anticipatory bail, claiming he had never talked about favourable orders, and alleging that Khan lodged the case in order to save her husband.

‘This Is Probably Last Of The Green Spaces’: Supreme Court Upholds Bombay HC Order Overturning CIDCO’s Plans To Relocate Sports Complex From Navi Mumbai To Raigad

Khan's lawyer, Rizwan Merchant, however, argued that Khatu had several cases registered against him, which came to light when a background check on him was run. Merchant also stated to the court that Khatu had been booked earlier for posing as an IAS officer, by the police in Delhi and in Kottayam, Kerala. The prosecution said that custodial interrogation is necessary, given the case’s seriousness. The court said that the alleged forgery of HC orders by an advocate “tarnishes the image of advocates at large”.