Months after the Supreme Court expressed concern over Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra's repeated suppression of material facts in remission petitions, another bench of the apex court found itself in a similar situation. It was revealed that Malhotra had attempted to mislead the Court by falsely claiming that charges against an accused had not been framed—an assertion that played a role in securing a bail order.
The Court refrained from passing any immediate order but scheduled the matter for a hearing the day after tomorrow.
On March 7, a bench of the Supreme Court had granted bail to an accused facing charges under Sections 376, 376(2)(N), 313, 417, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. The basis for granting bail was that charges against him had not yet been framed. The Court also took into account that the High Court had rejected his bail application on October 24, 2024, and that he had already spent more than four and a half years in custody.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Affirms Bombay High Court's Ruling in Advocate Cheating Case
However, Malhotra later filed a miscellaneous application seeking modification of the bail order, citing that charges had actually been framed before the Supreme Court's order was passed.
At the outset of the hearing, Justice Dhulia strongly criticized Malhotra for repeatedly misleading the Court:
"Just read your application that the charges have been framed on 29.11.2024 only after the passing of the impugned 24.10.2024 order. Just see your synopsis... When did you file the petition? On 18 December [2024], till now the charges have not been framed? Don't argue like this... We said it [that the charges have not been framed] because you said it. You are already in a problem. You are repeating this problem... You are saying the charges have not been framed, and charges were framed in November. It is wrongly stated. You are making it out as if this mistake is committed by this Court."
A lawyer representing the respondent asserted that this was a deliberate "tactic" used to secure bail under false pretenses.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Defers Ranveer Allahabadia's Passport Plea; Investigation Nears Completion
Justice Chandran also expressed his strong disapproval, stating:
"We are specifically asking you what is this statement made? You have a responsibility to see that you vet the petition before it has been filed. Counsel, we are asking you a question, whether you have a responsibility to settle the pleadings before you appear? Or at least, when you are briefed... why do you do this?"
In response, Malhotra argued that the case was handed over to him by the State’s Counsel and that he had relied on information provided by the State’s Standing Counsel, who had assured him that charges had not been framed against the accused.
Read Also:- Andhra Pradesh HC Dismisses PIL Against Increased Ticket Prices of Telugu Film 'Sankranthiki Vasthunam'
Justice Dhulia, unimpressed with this justification, sternly rebuked Malhotra:
"Again this is the problem with you... you are in a habit of making it [wrong statements]. Do you want us to observe so many things against you? How can you justify this? This is black and white, found on oath."
The Court’s strong words reflect its commitment to ensuring accuracy and integrity in legal proceedings. The matter remains pending, with further hearings expected soon.
Case Details: SACHIN DILIP SAMBARE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA|MA 553/2025 in SLP(Crl) No. 935/2025
