The High Court of Gujarat has rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by a law student accused of impersonating an advocate and allegedly siphoning off approximately ₹80 lakh from multiple victims. The court observed that the “noble profession of advocacy cannot be allowed to be tarnished” in such a manner.
Background
The applicant, Sadhu Falguni Miteshkumar, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with FIR C.R. No. 11206020260116 of 2026 registered with Kadi Police Station, District: Mahesana. The charges include offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(4), 319, 336(2), 340, 351(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
The case involves allegations that the applicant and other accused individuals misrepresented her as a practicing advocate to defraud the complainant and others of large sums of money.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Applicant: Learned advocate Mr. Bakul S. Panchal argued that the applicant was falsely implicated with “malicious intention” and had no knowledge of the alleged offence. He contended that while the incidents allegedly took place between January 22, 2025, and February 1, 2026, the complaint was registered on February 1, 2026, which he argued was delayed without a reason mentioned in the complaint.
Defense counsel further stated that the applicant is a student in her last semester of LL.B. and working as a Junior Intern. It was argued that she had never presented a Vakalatnama or appeared in any court of law, but was performing revenue and document-related work. The defense claimed the complainant lodged a false complaint to avoid paying fees after the applicant helped refer the case to help the complainant “short out his dispute.”
For the State: Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Mr. Chintan Dave vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. He pointed out that the investigation revealed several incriminating materials:
- An identity card issued by the Bar Council of Gujarat with an enrollment number in the applicant’s name.
- A nameplate describing her as an “Advocate of the Supreme Court of India.”
- Seals of various police stations, notarial registers, and seals used by a notary.
- A handbag and calendar reflecting her name as an advocate of the High Court carrying mail, WhatsApp, and phone contact details.
The prosecution further stated that statements from other victims who came forward after the FIR was lodged indicate that a total sum of ₹80,00,000 has been siphoned by the applicant and other named accused.
Court’s Analysis
Justice P. M. Raval examined the FIR, memo of application, and investigation papers. The Court noted that during a panchanama conducted at a shop in Narmada Plaza and the residence of the applicant’s husband, several items were recovered—including the enrollment card (G/356-F/2019), case registers, and police station seals—despite the applicant being a law student.
The Court observed:
“It transpires that a noble profession of advocacy cannot be allowed to be tarnished in such a like manner.”
The bench emphasized that custodial interrogation is required to reach the “roots of the alleged offence,” identify other involved persons, and trace the ₹80,00,000 allegedly swindled by all the accused in connivance with one another.
Testing the case against the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 665, the Court found that no case was made out for discretionary relief.
Decision
The Court concluded that it did not find any exceptional ground to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS. Consequently, the application was rejected and the Rule was discharged. A request by the applicant’s advocate to stay the order for a challenge in the Supreme Court was also rejected.
Case Details Block:
- Case Title: Sadhu Falguni Miteshkumar vs. State of Gujarat
- Case No.: R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 5522 of 2026
- Bench: Justice P. M. Raval
- Date: 08/04/2026
