The Patna High Court has recently annulled an FIR against a lawyer accused of orchestrating a proxy court appearance. In the case titled Sakaldeo Kumar Mandal v State of Bihar & Ors., the court addressed accusations of impersonation, forgery, and conspiracy following an incident where an imposter represented a defendant in court.
Justice Ansul, in a judgment delivered on May 15, highlighted the absence of concrete evidence implicating advocate Sakaldeo Mandal in the alleged crimes. The court noted, “There is not a shred of independent material connecting the petitioner (Mandal) to the offences alleged. No forged document bears his hand. No CCTV footage places him at the scene. No financial transaction, no call record, no corroborating circumstance of any kind is cited in the FIR against him.”
The FIR was registered at Jamui police station after Suman Kumar, also known as Amod Shah, was found impersonating another accused in court. CCTV confirmed his presence, and he was identified as having previously stood in for an actual defendant. During the investigation, Kumar alleged that Mandal instructed him to attend court on behalf of someone else, prompting charges under the Indian Penal Code for cheating, forgery, and conspiracy.
The court underscored that the prosecution’s case was based solely on the co-accused’s statement to the police, which is not admissible as evidence. The FIR itself acknowledged that no bail application was filed by Mandal for the impersonator. Justice Ansul emphasized the importance of credible evidence, particularly given the severity of the charges. “The absence of any admissible, independent material against the petitioner becomes all the more significant,” the court stated.
In its ruling, the court warned against criminal proceedings based on mere speculation, especially when relying on statements from a co-accused. Such a basis, the court argued, could compromise the judicial process. The court noted, “The prosecution case against the petitioner is built wholly upon an inadmissible statement. That is not a foundation; it is conjecture. Proceeding on conjecture alone, in a case where the petitioner is a member of the legal profession, would render the process of this Court itself an instrument of oppression.”
More Read
Consequently, the FIR and all related proceedings against Mandal were quashed. The legal team representing Mandal included Advocates Priyanka Singh, Umesh Prasad, Bihari Sen, and Harsh Kumar, while Additional Public Prosecutor Ajit Kumar represented the State.
