Mumbai: Observing that if this court exercises discretion in favour of applicant it will give a wrong message to society, a sessions court on Monday rejected the bail plea of advocate Vinaykumar Khatu, who is accused of defrauding a Delhi-based 74-year-old woman, a client, of Rs 2.57 crore by allegedly presenting her with forged orders purportedly issued by Bombay high court. “This court cannot ignore the antecedent of applicant. Admittedly, two offences were registered against applicant for misrepresenting himself as an IAS officer. If this court exercises discretion in favour of applicant, it will give a wrong message to society. The seriousness of allegations and antecedent of applicant prevent me from exercising discretion in favour of applicant,” sessions judge VG Raghuwanshi said. The judge also said that if one decides to rely on WhatsApp chat then he cannot ignore that accused had stated about stay granted by honourable high court in his chat with the accountant and it is also clear that huge amounts were transferred to the accounts of his friends, associates and him after the date of fabricated orders. It was also held that offences relating to criminal breach of trust and forgery of valuable security were added against accused. “A judgment of civil court can be considered a valuable security…Court judgments often create or modify legal right and liabilities. Thus, the judgments fit within definition of valuable security,” the judge said. The accused was a lawyer of the woman, Urmila Talyarkhan, who was involved in a property dispute relating to a land in Alibaug. After a lower court ruled against her, Talyarkhan appealed the decision to the district court. Her advocate failed to appear for the hearing, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on Mar 13, 2018. Residing in Delhi at the time, she remained unaware of this dismissal until 2022, as her advocate did not inform her. It was alleged that through a business acquaintance, Talyarkhan was introduced to Khatu. She retained Khatu for six matters, including the land dispute appeal, and a suit against her husband. Khatu allegedly charged an exorbitant fee of Rs 10 lakh per case. She allegedly transferred Rs 2 crore from her friend’s account to those associated with the accused. Following Khatu’s advice, she filed a second appeal in Bombay high court, with applications for condonation of a four-year delay and a stay order. Denying the allegations, the accused said that he was arrested on Oct 19, 2024. “Nothing needs to be seized from him. There is no possibility of tampering evidence,” the lawyer submitted.
