Why Chandigarh court denied bail to advocate accused of taking Rs 10.77 lakh

The accused advocate is facing proceedings in a First Information Report registered in May this year at the Sector 39 police station in Chandigarh on charges of cheating under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and bribing a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was arrested on July 7 and has been in custody since then.

The FIR was registered on the complaint of Pushpinder Bagga, who alleged that the accused advocate took Rs 5.77 lakh through online transactions and Rs 5 lakh in cash from the complainant and her sister, Jaspreet Kaur, on the pretext of securing bail for Baljit Singh, who had been lodged in Burail Jail since 2024. The accused advocate allegedly showed a bail order purportedly passed by a high court judge on his mobile phone, but the order did not bear an official seal and appeared suspicious, the court noted. It also observed that Baljit Singh’s bail was not pending before that court.

No evidence on record: What the defence argued

Arguing for bail, the accused advocate’s counsel submitted that the applicant had been falsely implicated at the instance of the complainant and that no offence under the BNS or Prevention of Corruption Act was made out. The counsel said, “The ingredients of offences are not made. The complainant has intentionally and deliberately presented wrong and distorted facts. The applicant/accused has no concern with the allegations levelled against him.”

The defence further submitted that the accused advocate, a law graduate practising at Kalka and Chandigarh district courts, had been contacted by Kaur to file a regular bail application for Baljit Singh, who was lodged in Model Jail, Burail.

It was submitted that the accused had told her he was a beginner in practice and did not have sufficient experience in handling such bail matters. Kaur allegedly insisted, pointing out that no senior or experienced lawyer was ready to represent Baljit. The legal fee, the counsel said, was mutually settled.

“No iota of evidence has been brought on record to prove any forged or fabricated bail order. The amount so received by the applicant is in the shape of counsel fee,” the counsel argued. It was further submitted that nothing had been recovered from the accused.

Without prejudice to his rights, the defence said, the accused was ready to deposit Rs 5.77 lakh received through electronic bank transfer/UPI before the investigating officer, to be kept in the form of a fixed deposit receipt subject to the outcome of the case. “No useful purpose would be served and otherwise also the bail is a rule and jail is an exception,” the counsel argued, adding that there were no chances of the accused fleeing from justice.

Accused sharp-minded: What prosecution submitted

Opposing the bail, the prosecution submitted that during the investigation, the accused was arrested and three mobile phones and one laptop were recovered and sent for forensic analysis to the Forensic Laboratory, Sector 36, Chandigarh. Its report was still awaited. The additional public prosecutor argued that “the accused is sharp-minded and as per the allegations, he has extracted money out of the complainant by misusing the name of judges of Hon’ble High Court.”

“The plea of false implication of the applicant-accused is subject matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of deciding the bail application,” the court observed. On the offer to return the Rs 5.77 lakh, the court observed, “As far as the arguments that the accused is ready to deposit the sum of Rs 5,77,000 which was received by him through various online modes, is concerned, even if the accused is ready to deposit the said amount, that cannot be a ground to grant the concession of bail to the accused because as per the allegations, accused had obtained a sum of Rs 10,77,000 in total.”

The court further held that, “Moreover, the return of the said amount, by itself does not by itself becomes ground of grant of concession of bail. Therefore, these arguments are also rejected.” Stating that it does not find any ground to grant bail, the court dismissed the bail plea.