In a recent order reaffirming the principles of personal liberty and proportionality in criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court granted bail to a woman accused of cheating several individuals by allegedly posing as a practising advocate. The ruling in Poonam Charandas Khanna v. State of Maharashtra highlights the Court’s consistent approach that prolonged incarceration should not continue when the alleged offences carry limited punishment and the trial is nearing completion.
A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the appeal against the Bombay High Court’s refusal to grant bail. The judgment once again underscores that pre-trial detention must remain an exception rather than the norm, particularly where the accused has already spent considerable time in custody.
Background and Allegations
The case arose from a First Information Report registered in February 2020 at Kherwadi Police Station in Mumbai. According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly misrepresented herself as an enrolled advocate and collected substantial amounts of money from individuals by promising legal assistance and favourable outcomes in their cases.
Authorities booked her under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with cheating, and Section 406 IPC, which pertains to criminal breach of trust. The prosecution claimed that several persons were misled into believing that she was authorised to practise law and paid professional fees on that basis.
Although the FIR was filed in 2020, the woman was arrested only in January 2024. She subsequently moved for regular bail before the Bombay High Court, which rejected her application in December 2025. Challenging this decision, she approached the Supreme Court seeking relief.
Submissions Before the Court
Appearing for the accused, counsel argued that she had already undergone more than two years of incarceration and that continued detention would be unjustified. The defence also highlighted her age — nearly 60 years — and emphasised that the trial had reached an advanced stage.
It was further submitted that the offences alleged did not carry punishment exceeding seven years. On this basis, the defence contended that keeping the accused behind bars for an extended period before conviction would be contrary to settled principles of bail jurisprudence and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.
The State opposed the plea, stressing the seriousness of the allegations and the alleged financial loss suffered by multiple complainants. However, the Bench examined whether continued custody was necessary in light of the stage of trial and the period already spent in jail.
Key Observations of the Supreme Court
While granting bail, the Court considered several factors that have become central to modern bail jurisprudence:
1. Length of Incarceration
The Bench noted that the accused had been in custody since January 2024. The Court observed that prolonged detention without conclusion of trial could infringe upon the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. Nature and Punishment of Offences
The alleged offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC carry a maximum punishment of seven years. The Court emphasised that where the statutory punishment is limited, continued incarceration should be carefully scrutinised to ensure it does not become punitive.
3. Progress of Trial
The Court took into account that the trial was at an advanced stage. In such circumstances, it found that keeping the accused in custody any longer was unnecessary.
4. Principle of Proportionality
Although the allegations were serious, the Bench reiterated that bail decisions must maintain a balance between the rights of the accused and the interests of justice. Detention cannot be justified solely on the basis of accusations when the trial is progressing and the accused has already spent significant time in jail.
Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed that the woman be released on bail, subject to appropriate conditions.
Importance for Bail Jurisprudence
The order is another example of the Supreme Court’s evolving approach towards bail, especially in cases involving economic offences or allegations of fraud. Over the years, the Court has emphasised that pre-trial incarceration should not amount to punishment before conviction.
By focusing on the maximum sentence, length of custody, and stage of trial, the judgment reinforces the idea that courts must adopt a balanced and humane approach. It also reflects the judiciary’s growing concern over overcrowded prisons and the large number of undertrial prisoners who remain in custody for extended periods.
This ruling may serve as persuasive guidance for lower courts dealing with similar cases, particularly where the accused has already undergone substantial imprisonment and there is no immediate risk of absconding or influencing witnesses.
Implications for the Legal Profession
Cases involving individuals falsely claiming to be advocates raise significant ethical and professional concerns. The legal profession in India is regulated under the Advocates Act, 1961, which mandates enrolment with a State Bar Council as a prerequisite for practising law. Allegations of impersonation can undermine public confidence in legal institutions.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that allegations alone cannot justify indefinite detention. The presumption of innocence remains a cornerstone of criminal justice, and bail decisions must be guided by constitutional principles rather than public sentiment.
Representation and Bench Composition
The accused was represented by advocates Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, Pranay Saraf and Vidhi Pankaj Thaker. The State was represented by a team including Varad Kilor, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Shrirang B Varma, Shibu Devasia Olickal and K Gireesh Kumar.
The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the order, adding to a series of recent decisions where the Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of safeguarding individual liberty while ensuring the smooth conduct of criminal trials.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Poonam Charandas Khanna v. State of Maharashtra reaffirms a core constitutional value — that personal liberty cannot be curtailed unnecessarily during the pendency of a trial. By granting bail to a woman accused of posing as a lawyer and cheating clients, the Court highlighted that prolonged custody is unwarranted when the alleged offences carry limited punishment and the trial is nearing completion.
For legal observers, the decision is another reminder that bail jurisprudence in India continues to evolve toward a rights-based framework. While the allegations against the accused remain to be adjudicated at trial, the order ensures that the process itself does not become punitive — a principle that lies at the heart of a fair and just criminal justice system.
Also Read
Online Legal Research Internship at Record Of Law: Apply Now
“Humiliating”: Allahabad High Court Quashes Placard Punishment Imposed on Student
