The Bombay High Court recently granted pre-arrest bail to an advocate who is accused of aiding a woman who impersonated a lady while filing consent terms in a civil dispute in 2020.
While granting pre-arrest bail to Rakesh Dubey, Justice Bharti Dangre observed that there was no reason to disbelieve the advocate who signed the vakalatnama ((document to be filed by advocate to be able to represent a client) on the same day as filing of consent.
“There is no reason to disbelieve the applicant (Dubey), as a lawyer was satisfied that the vakalatnama given to him and chose to represent the defendant in the Suit and even signed the consent terms,” said Justice Dangre.
On March 9, 2020, a woman approached Dubey claiming to be Pushpa Gidwani and asked him to represent her in the suit when the consent terms would be tendered in court. She was added as a defendant in a civil suit filed before Dindoshi City Civil Court in 2019.
Dubey agreed to represent her and filed his vakalatnama on the same day as the consent terms were filed.
Aniket Nikam, Dubey’s advocate, argued that there was no reason for him to dispute the woman’s statement.
When the matter was subsequently listed before the Lok Adalat in December 2020, the panel members sought to affirm the consent of the “Pushpa Gidwani” and hence asked Dubey to video call his client on WhatsApp. He made the call and the woman appeared on video and identified herself as Gidwani and accepted the consent terms as true and correct.
The incident came to light, when the real Pushpa Gidwani lodged a complaint with the Khar police station in April 2022, alleging cheating, impersonation and criminal conspiracy by some woman and her lawyer by filing consent terms on her behalf.
Additional public prosecutor Anamika Malhotra opposed Dubey’s plea stating that Dubey had refused to divert the woman’s phone number, to whom he made a video call.
To this, Nikam assured the court that Dubey shall render his co-operation to the Investigating Officer.
Justice Dangre granted him pre-arrest bail directing his release, in case of arrest, against a personal bond of Rs 25,000, noting that the lawyer’s custodial interrogation was not necessary.
.png)
