MUMBAI: The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to a Mumbai resident arrested for allegedly posing as a Supreme Court lawyer and duping a builder of ₹51 lakh.
A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan granted bail to Poonam Charandas Khanna primarily on the ground of her long incarceration. She had approached the apex court after the Bombay High Court rejected her bail plea on December 8, in connection with a cheating case registered at Kherwadi police station.
Arguing for Khanna, advocate Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, Pranay Saraf and Vidhi Pankaj Thaker, told the court that the accused was nearly 60-years-old and had been in custody for over two years, since January 2024, despite no considerable progress in the trial.
Khanna’s representatives pointed out that eight out of the 12 witnesses in the case had been examined and it was unclear when the trial would conclude. Adding that the offences carry a maximum sentence of seven years, Dalvi argued that she had “a good case on merits” and that “chances of her acquittal are bright”.
The state government and the complainant opposed the plea, stating she had “misrepresented that she is an advocate when she is not qualified as an advocate” and had “duped several persons” by claiming she could secure legal relief for them, earning “huge sums” as professional charges.
According to the high court’s order, the first informant, a builder with multiple litigations pending, was introduced to Khanna through his nephew. She allegedly “misrepresented herself to be a lawyer practicing in the Supreme Court” and gave him a visiting card describing herself as a ‘legal consultant’. The court recorded that she took ₹10 lakh as a retainer fee and demanded ₹50 lakh as fees to appear in the Supreme Court. Eventually, she earned ₹51 lakh as payment for service.
At the time, refusing her bail, the court termed it “a serious offence”, observing that she is “neither an advocate nor does she have a degree of LLB”. It described impersonating a lawyer as “a taint and blemish on the legal profession” something which “erodes the public faith in the legal profession”.
The court noted the prosecution’s argument that there were over nine similar cases against her, all related to cheating, and even two criminal proceedings pending in Haryana. In response, the bench held that “no case is made out for long incarceration” and rejected her bail, while requesting the trial court to conclude the trial within a year.
However, on Friday, the Supreme Court granted her bail with conditions to be set by the trial court. The court held that she must “extend complete cooperation in the trial” and must not “not misuse her liberty in any manner”, cautioning that if she fails to do so her bail can be immediately cancelled.