Orissa High Court refuses to quash FIR against lawyer accused of taking money to bribe judge for bail

The Orissa High Court recently refused to dismiss a criminal case against a lawyer accused of taking cash, gold and property deeds from a client in exchange for securing favorable bail results from a now-retired Supreme Court judge.

The single sofa consisting of Judge Sibo Sankar Mishra underscoring the need for strict measures to maintain public confidence in the legal system, the Orissa State Bar Council was directed to conduct an inquiry into the allegations against the petitioner-lawyer.

“Insofar as the prayer to quash the FIR as sought in the present petition is concerned, this Court is not inclined to do so as the allegations are not only at nascent stage of investigation but also so serious in nature if the name of a former judge of this Court has been smeared. The informant provided precise details of the claims made relating to the period during which the case was pending before the Court. Therefore, the present petition does not merit merit with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand Rupees) to be deposited by the petitioner within two weeks with the District Legal Services Authority, Cuttack.”the court said.

After her husband refused bail, the informant allegedly collected Rs. 16,35,000, gold ornaments and property deeds on the directions of the petitioner-lawyer to secure the release of her husband by bribing the judge.

The FIR records phone messages and photographs as evidence, with the informant claiming that after her husband’s denial of bail, the petitioner demanded an additional ₹16 lakhs for a fresh application.

When she requested the return of files, money and property deeds, the petitioner allegedly refused and threatened her, claiming judicial influence to block her husband’s bail.

The informant alleges that the petitioner submitted fake bail applications with her husband’s signature and later reneged on a promise to return her money and documents, prompting her to file an FIR against the petitioner.

Since the allegations were serious, the Court was not inclined to quash the case against the petitioner and instead recalled the role of the Bar Association to safeguard the professional ethics of the practitioner for taking action against “A few black sheep that could damage the credibility of the profession and therefore put other members of the bar at risk.”

Referring to the case of R. Muthukrishnan vs. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature, Madras, the Court observed that since advocacy is a noble profession, it must abstain from collusion and corruption and instead uphold ethical standards in the profession.

“It is the ethical duty of lawyers not to expect any favor from a judge. He must rely on the precedents, read them carefully and avoid corruption and conspiracy of any kind, avoid making false pleas and avoiding distortions of facts. It cannot be said that everything is fair, even in the struggle for survival. Honesty, dedication and hard work are the only source of perfection. The exemplary conduct of a lawyer should be to defame the judges or his colleagues, or to engage in misconduct, which is the most sinister and damaging act that can be done to the entire legal system.”

Since the allegations of professional misconduct against the petitioner were required to be investigated by the Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961, the Court directed the State Bar Council to conduct an inquiry after giving both parties a fair opportunity.

“In the light of the above discussion, this Court, before dismissing the petition, deems it necessary to give, in the facts of the present case, directions necessary to serve the suit. This Court, therefore, directs the Bar Council of Orissa to conduct an investigation into the allegations. The Registrar of this Court is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Secretary of the Bar Council of Orissa unaffected by the above comments and by providing all stakeholders with sufficient opportunity to participate in the proceedings.”

On this basis the request was rejected.

Appearance:

For the petitioner: Mr. Surya Narayan Biswal, Advocate

For the Opp. Party: Mr. Sangram Keshari Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel

Case Title: Sambit Samal vs State of Odisha

Click here to read/download the judgment