In a significant order, the Gujarat High Court declined anticipatory bail to a law student accused of posing as an advocate and allegedly participating in a wider fraud network. The court noted serious allegations and the need for custodial interrogation.
Background of the Case
The case arises from an FIR registered at Kadi Police Station in Mehsana district, where the applicant, Sadhu Falguni Miteshkumar, sought protection from arrest under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
According to the complaint, offences under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were invoked. The complainant alleged financial cheating and misrepresentation over a period spanning January 2025 to February 2026.
Read also:- Sabarimala Case: Supreme Court Warns Against Diluting Religion in Name of Reform
The applicant’s counsel argued that she was falsely implicated, had no direct role in the alleged financial transactions, and was merely assisting in document-related work while pursuing her LL.B. degree.
Appearing for the applicant, Advocate Bakul S. Panchal contended that:
“The complaint is based on incorrect and exaggerated allegations. The applicant had no knowledge of any alleged offence.”
It was also argued that the FIR was filed after a delay without proper explanation, and that no specific role was attributed to the applicant in the alleged demand or receipt of money.
The defence maintained that the complainant had fabricated the case due to a dispute over legal fees.
Read also:- Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Plea Against Savukku Shankar’s Detention, Directs Move to High Court
Opposing the plea, Additional Public Prosecutor Chintan Dave submitted that the investigation had revealed substantial material against the applicant.
The prosecution informed the court that items recovered during investigation included identity cards, seals of police stations, notarial tools, and visiting cards portraying the applicant as an advocate even though she had not yet completed her law degree.
Further, statements of multiple alleged victims had surfaced, with claims that nearly ₹80 lakh had been siphoned off collectively by the accused persons.
Read also:- Kejriwal Flags ‘Conflict of Interest’ in Delhi HC, Files Fresh Affidavit Seeking Judge’s Recusal
The State argued that custodial interrogation was essential to uncover the full extent of the alleged fraud and identify other victims.
Justice P. M. Raval, after reviewing the FIR and investigation records, noted prima facie evidence suggesting misrepresentation.
“The noble profession of advocacy cannot be allowed to be tarnished in such a manner,” the bench observed.
The court also highlighted the recovery of materials indicating that the applicant was allegedly presenting herself as a practicing advocate, despite still being a student.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Pulls Up GNCTD Over Delay in Forming Grievance Committee, Sets 3-Week Deadline
Given the nature of the allegations and the scale of the alleged fraud, the court found that detailed investigation was necessary.
Relying on principles laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs State of Punjab, the court held that no exceptional grounds were made out for granting anticipatory bail.
The application was rejected, and the request to stay the order for approaching the Supreme Court was also denied.
Case Details
Case Title: Sadhu Falguni Miteshkumar vs State of Gujarat
Case Number: R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 5522 of 2026
Judge: Justice P. M. Raval
Decision Date: 08 April 2026
