Bar Council of India Removes 107 Fake Advocates from Delhi Roll to Uphold Legal Integrity

Image
Bar Council of India Removes 107 Fake Advocates from  Delhi Roll to Uphold Legal Integrity The Bar Council of India (BCI) has taken decisive action in a sweeping initiative aimed at maintaining the integrity of the legal profession by removing 107 fake advocates  from the Roll of Advocates in Delhi  between 2019 and October 2024. This step comes as part of the BCI's rigorous verification process to ensure that only qualified, genuinely practising advocates remain in the profession, ultimately upholding public trust in the legal system. Strengthened Verification Framework Under Rule 32 This effort falls under Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 . The BCI  amended Rule 32 on June 23, 2023 , which empowered the BCI to verify, identify, and systematically remove unqualified and fake advocates from the Roll. The rule amendment has made the process of weeding out non-compliant individuals significantly more efficient. Accordi

Delhi HC Grants Bail in High-Profile Fraud Case Involving Rs 344 Crores

Delhi HC Grants Bail in High-Profile Fraud Case 

Involving Rs 344 Crores


Issue of the Case


The key issue in this case is whether V Hans Prakash, accused in a high-profile fraud involving the alleged transfer of Rs 344 crores worth of mutual funds and securities, is entitled to bail pending trial. The primary concerns include the sufficiency of the evidence, the necessity of custodial detention, and the flight risk of the accused.


Facts of the Case


Background:


The Delhi High Court recently granted bail to V Hans Prakash, who was accused in a significant fraud case involving the fraudulent transfer of mutual funds and securities worth Rs 344 crores held by Dalmia Cements Bharat Ltd. This decision was rendered by Justice Amit Mahajan on August 7.


Details of the Allegation:


- Companies Involved: Dalmia Cements Bharat Ltd, and its subsidiaries OCL India Limited and Dalmia Cement East Ltd, which had mutual fund investments managed by Allied Financial Services Pvt. Ltd (AFSPL).

- Fraudulent Actions: The complaint alleges that Awanish Kumar Mishra, a director at AFSPL, fraudulently manipulated the credentials and forged signatures to transfer mutual fund units valued at Rs 344.07 crores. This resulted in the complainant not receiving the redemption amount requested in December 2018.

- Accused’s Role: V Hans Prakash, the head of business at IL&FS Securities Services Ltd, is accused of facilitating the misuse of the fraudulently transferred mutual fund units.


Legal Proceedings:


- Investigation Status: The investigation into the case is complete, with the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet filed. All incriminating documents have been recovered and are part of the charge-sheet.

- Previous Bail: The main accused, Awanish Kumar Mishra, was granted bail by the High Court on October 25, 2021.

- Petition for Bail: V Hans Prakash was taken into custody after the filing of the charge-sheet on March 14, 2019. He petitioned for regular bail through Advocate Akshay Bhandari, arguing that the investigation was complete, and there was no flight risk as he had not misused interim bail.


Ratio Decidendi


Court’s Findings:


1. Completion of Investigation:

   Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet along with supplementary documents was filed. The recovery of all incriminating documents meant that custodial detention was no longer necessary.


2. Lack of Criminal Record and Flight Risk:

   The Court noted that V Hans Prakash did not have a criminal record, and he was not arrested during the investigation until the charge-sheet was filed. The absence of any misuse of interim bail and the lack of a flight risk supported the decision to grant bail.


3. Comparison with Main Accused:

   The Court also highlighted that the main accused, Awanish Kumar Mishra, who faced serious allegations, had already been granted bail, indicating a consistent approach in handling bail applications for co-accused.


Conclusion:


Justice Mahajan concluded that V Hans Prakash was entitled to bail pending trial, given the circumstances of the case and the completion of the investigation. The Court determined that continued custodial detention would serve no useful purpose and granted bail accordingly, subject to conditions ensuring his appearance for the trial.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Legal Proceedings Initiated Against Former Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren

Equality Before Law