Nagpur: More skeletons are tumbling out in the case where Nagpur bench of Bombay high court ordered an inquiry against a lawyer for allegedly suppressing facts while filing a bail application of a rape accused.
As per the report submitted by principal district and sessions judge (PDJ) to the HC, the lawyer in question didn’t have Vakalatnama from the petitioner Swapnil Ramteke, nor from his brother.
The PDJ in his report also mentioned that he interrogated the accused lawyer, who claimed that the accused’s brother had given him oral instructions to file the second bail application, without mentioning the facts of the first one rejected by judge RR Patare on March 19, 2021.
Justice Deo then orally told Ramteke’s counsel Mir Nagman Ali to file a detailed affidavit on whether petitioner’s brother had instructed the lawyer to file a second bail application. The hearing was then adjourned for a week. TOI had on Friday filed a detailed report on HC flaying the lawyer for suppressing facts while filing second bail application of the accused that is pending before another sessions judge SR Trivedi.
The petitioner was booked under Section 376 along with Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act by Wathoda police station last year for allegedly raping a 13-year-old girl on July 12. He moved the HC after his first bail plea was cancelled on March 19, 2021. Later, it came to fore that the petitioner had filed a second bail application before another judge while suppressing that his first application was rejected.
Justice Deo then asked the principal judge to submit a photocopy of the entire record of first and second bail pleas filed by Ramteke, and inform whether those are filed without instructions and whether entire facts are disclosed.