Mumbai, Aug 11 (PTI) A court here has refused anticipatory bail to a 60-year-old lawyer accused of abetting the preparation of forged documents of a trust, saying more “care and integrity” was expected from him as he has been practising for thirty years.
The anticipatory bail plea of advocate Ramji Gupta was rejected by additional sessions judge NG Shukla last week.
In the detailed order made available on Monday, the court noted that as per documents placed on record, the trust’s chairman, whose signature has been forged, had suffered a fracture and was hospitalized on July 8, 2020.
Thus, it was “highly improbable” that the chairman would have been able to appear at Gupta’s office on July 11, 2020, to sign the notary register, the court said.
“It appears that the applicant has been practicing for the last 30 years as a notary. Hence, more care and integrity was expected from the applicant in notarizing the documents in the notary register,” the court held.
Gupta has been booked for cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust by the Economic Offences Wing of Mumbai police.
The prosecution’s case centers on a ‘conducting agreement’ that was allegedly notarized by Gupta on July 11, 2020. The agreement was purportedly signed by the trust’s chairman. However, a per the prosecution, the chairman was hospitalized from July 8, 2020 till his death on August 16, 2020.
The chairman’s signature was forged through impersonation, and Gupta abetted the co-accused in preparing the forged document, the prosecution has claimed.
Gupta, through his lawyer, argued that his role was limited to notarizing the agreement and that he cooperated with the investigation by providing his notary register and licence.
He also contended the entire case was based on documents and that his custodial interrogation was not necessary.
However, the court found several inconsistencies that raised suspicion.
Additional public prosecutor Chaitrali Panshikar pointed out that the notary register showed overwriting on previous entries to adjust the entry for the conducting agreement.
It suggests that the entry was made after the FIR was filed, the APP submitted.
The court rejected his anticipatory bail by stating that Gupta’s custodial interrogation was necessary to determine when the entry for the conducting agreement was made and who had signed as the chairman. PTI AVI BNM
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.