According to the informant, she engaged the applicant's legal services for several litigations, including a Second Appeal concerning a property in Alibaug. After paying substantial fees for legal representation, Mrs. Talyarkhan alleges that the applicant provided her with what she believed were favorable court orders. However, upon consulting a new advocate, she discovered that the orders were fabricated, leading her to file an FIR against the applicant.

The applicant’s counsel, Ms. Pushpa Ganediwala, contends that there was a significant delay in filing the FIR, asserting that communications between the applicant and the informant did not mention any favorable orders until June 2024, when the applicant withdrew his power of attorney. The defense emphasizes that WhatsApp records show no discussions regarding the alleged orders, and the funds received by the applicant were for legitimate legal fees.

Furthermore, Ganediwala argues that the applicant only received a portion of the claimed fees and had been managing numerous legal matters for the informant. The defense paints the allegations as a fabricated narrative, claiming the informant may have conjured these accusations following dissatisfaction with the legal representation.

In contrast, the Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Yogesh Dabke, asserts that the evidence indicates the applicant knowingly provided forged orders and misappropriated funds amounting to over Rs. 2.57 crores. The prosecution argues that the applicant’s WhatsApp communications and witness statements corroborate the allegations of fraud and deception, warranting custodial interrogation.

Mr. Rizwan Merchant, counsel for the informant, adds another layer to the narrative by highlighting the applicant’s criminal antecedents, including prior arrests for impersonating a government officer. The counsel argues that the applicant exploited the informant's vulnerability, given her age and lack of legal heirs, to orchestrate a sophisticated conspiracy involving forged documents.

The court meticulously reviewed the arguments from both sides. While the applicant's counsel sought to downplay the severity of the allegations, the court underscored the importance of custodial interrogation to fully understand the extent of the alleged fraud and to trace the money trail. The court noted that the release of the applicant on pre-arrest bail could impede the investigation and potentially allow for evidence tampering.

Ultimately, the court denied the application for pre-arrest bail, highlighting that such requests are viewed with caution, especially in serious cases involving potential fraud. The decision reflects the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that justice prevails and that the integrity of the legal system remains intact.

As this case continues to unfold, it serves as a stark reminder of the complexities involved in legal representation and the profound trust clients place in their advocates. The implications of this case could resonate beyond the courtroom, shedding light on issues of fraud within the legal profession and the safeguards necessary to protect vulnerable clients.