A Mumbai sessions court rejected lawyer Hiral Jadhav’s second bail plea in a case alleging that she cheated the wife of a murder accused by providing a forged bail order. The court cited the seriousness of the allegations, the stage of the trial and concerns over possible evidence tampering, noting that key witnesses are yet to be examined.

Lawyer Hiral Jadhav remains in custody after a Mumbai court rejected her second request for bail in the alleged forged order case | File Image

Mumbai, August 18, 2026: The sessions court has rejected the bail plea of 33-year-old lawyer Hiral Jadhav from Borivali, booked for allegedly forging a court order on the complaint of a relative of a murder accused.

Jadhav was arrested by the Crime Branch last year on the complaint of a close relative of a murder accused for cheating. The court on Tuesday rejected her second bail application, observing that her second bail application was not tenable in law as all the grounds had already been considered when the court rejected her first plea.

Alleged Forged Bail Order

As per the case registered against Jadhav, she had promised the wife of the accused to get him out on bail and charged a fee of Rs 65,000, which was paid in August 2022. Thereafter, Jadhav had submitted a bail plea.

`;

It is claimed that on August 28, 2022, Jadhav called the complainant and informed her that her husband's bail plea had been allowed by the Dindoshi court for Rs 25,000. She asked her to meet her near the High Court to deliver the money and take the papers.

The complainant claimed that when they submitted the papers to prison, they were informed that the documents were not complete. When she followed up with Jadhav, she gave another order and papers. This was also not accepted.

Later, when the woman checked with the court, she was told that the order given to her by Jadhav was not true. Hence, the wife lodged a complaint against Jadhav, who was later arrested.

Court Rejects Second Bail Plea

Jadhav, while seeking bail for the second time, had pleaded that she had been behind bars for one and a half years. She pleaded that material witnesses had already been examined and there was a lapse of time since her first bail plea was rejected.

Also Watch:

The court, however, said that “there is no intentional delay caused by the prosecution for conducting the trial. Considering the role and involvement of the applicant in the serious crime, if she is released on bail, certainly she would tamper with the evidence of remaining prosecution witnesses. The material witnesses are yet to be examined. Considering the nature and seriousness of crime and involvement of the applicant as well as stage of trial.”

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/

Add As a

Trusted Source