Denial of Anticipatory Bail to Alleged Impersonator: High Court of Gujarat Limits Relief Under Section 482 BNSS

Impersonation Scandal: Gujarat High Court Denies Protection to Aspiring Advocate

In a striking ruling that highlights the judiciary's stance against the professional misconduct of faux-legal practitioners, the High Court of Gujarat has rejected the anticipatory bail application of an individual accused of perpetrating an elaborate fraud under the guise of an advocate.

The case, Sadhu Falguni Miteshkumar v. State of Gujarat , involves allegations of serious criminal activity, including impersonation, forgery, and financial exploitation totaling approximately Rs 80,00,000.

The Backdrop: A Web of False Credentials

The applicant, a final-semester LL.B. student, found herself at the center of a police investigation following the registration of an FIR at the Kadi Police Station . The State alleged that the accused, operating in concert with her husband, created a fraudulent persona as an advocate of the Supreme Court of India .

The investigation uncovered a trove of incriminating evidence, including:

* A fake Bar Council of Gujarat identity card.

* Official seals belonging to various police stations.

* Notarial registers and seals.

* Office signage declaring her to be a Supreme Court advocate.

While the defense argued that the applicant was merely a junior intern handling revenue work and was being falsely implicated due to a fee dispute, the State’s narrative painted a different picture—one of a sophisticated, ongoing scam targeting multiple victims.

Arguments Before the Bench

Counsel for the applicant maintained that the allegations were motivated by a complainant seeking to avoid legitimate legal fees. They argued that the FIR was delayed, that no personal role in financial transactions was evidenced, and that the applicant was a junior professional working under legitimate supervision.

In contrast, the Additional Public Prosecutor presented a compelling case for custodial interrogation. The State highlighted that the scope of the fraud went beyond a single complainant, involving multiple victims and a systemic siphoning of nearly one crore rupees. The State argued that the sheer volume of recovered physical evidence—from police seals to false identification—necessitated a thorough investigation that could not be achieved if the applicant were granted pre-arrest protection.

Key Observations

The Honorable Mr. Justice P. M. Raval, in his assessment of the case, emphasized the sanctity of the legal profession. Several key passages from the judgment illustrate the court’s reasoning:

• "It transpires that a noble profession of advocacy cannot be allowed to be tarnished in such a like manner."
• "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."
• "Prima facie, it appears that while conducting panchanama at the Shop... at the same day, the visiting card reflecting name of the present applicant as an advocate is recovered."

Final Decision: The Path Toward Investigation

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) , 2023. The court found that the evidence—specifically the recovery of official seals and credentials—presented a prima facie case of criminal deceit that required further investigation in custody.

In a final development, the court denied a request for a stay on the order, signaling that no delay in the investigative process would be permitted. This ruling serves as a stern warning against the misuse of legal credentials and reiterates that anticipatory bail is a discretionary power, not a weapon to be used to shield against serious criminal inquiry.