Shreya Gupta
Months after the Supreme Court criticized Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra for repeatedly suppressing material facts in remission petitions, another bench today raised similar concerns. It was revealed that he had misled the Court by falsely claiming that charges against an accused had not been framed, which led to the granting of a bail order.
The bench comprising of Justice Shudhansu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran heard the matter. In this particular instance, Mr. Malhotra was found to have falsely claimed that charges against an accused had not been framed when seeking bail, which resulted in the Court granting bail on March 7. The accused faced allegations under Sections 376, 376(2)(N), 313, 417, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. The bail was granted under the impression that no charges had been framed, considering that the accused’s bail was rejected by the High Court on October 24, 2024, and that he had already spent over four and a half years in incarceration. However, Mr. Malhotra later filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking modification of the order, revealing that charges had actually been framed before the bail order was passed.
Justice Dhulia, addressing Mr. Malhotra, noted his repeated history of misleading the Court and expressed concern over his lack of responsibility. He pointed out that Mr. Malhotra’s application misleadingly stated that the charges were framed on November 29, 2024, after the High Court passed the order on October 24, 2024.
Justice Dhulia emphasized that the Court had relied on Mr. Malhotra’s earlier representation that charges had not been framed when granting bail and warned him against repeating such conduct. The Respondent’s advocate contended that this was a deliberate tactic employed to obtain bail. Justice Chandran further criticized Mr. Malhotra, stating that as a Senior Advocate, he bore the responsibility of ensuring the accuracy of pleadings before presenting them to the Court. He questioned whether Mr. Malhotra had vetted the petition properly before filing it and reiterated the importance of responsibility in legal proceedings.
In his defense, Mr. Malhotra stated that the case had been handed over by the State’s Counsel and that it was the State’s Standing Counsel who informed him those charges had not been framed. However, Justice Dhulia dismissed this explanation, highlighting Mr. Malhotra’s habitual practice of making incorrect statements. He sternly questioned whether Mr. Malhotra wanted the Court to make further adverse observations against him and emphasized that the falsity of the statement was evident in black and white, found on oath.
The matter has not been resolved yet, and the Court is set to hear it again on April 3, 2025.
Case Name: SACHIN DILIP SAMBARE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Case Number: MA 553/2025 in SLP(Crl) No. 935/2025
Bench: Justice Shudhansu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran
Instagram: Click here.
LinkedIn: Click here.
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com
