Cuttack: Orissa high court denied bail to a man accused of impersonating an advocate and appearing before the court using another person’s enrolment number. The court observed that the act amounted to fraud on the judiciary and “a crime against society”.Rejecting the bail application on May 12, Justice Gourishankar Satapathy said the allegations against the petitioner were grave and involved misuse of the judicial process. “The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner having no license issued from any bar council to practice in any court has posed as a lawyer and conducted an election petition before this court by impersonating himself as an advocate,” Justice Satapathy said in the order.The case stems from an FIR registered at Lalbag police station in Cuttack following directions issued earlier by the high court on Sept 12, 2025. The fake lawyer was arrested in Dec 2025 and has remained in custody for over five months.During the hearing, counsel for accused argued that since the chargesheet had already been filed and the petitioner had spent more than five-and-a-half months in confinement, his detention should not be prolonged further.However, Justice Satapathy noted that the accused had repeatedly failed to furnish any valid enrolment number or licence issued by a Bar Council to practise despite being given opportunities by the court. The judge further recorded that the enrolment number mentioned by him in the vakalatnama was found to belong to one Gitanjali Sharma.“The circumstances under which this FIR has been registered against the petitioner and the allegation therein really depicts a serious allegation against the petitioner for not only conducting a case by impersonating an advocate, but also for practicing fraud upon the court and the same is a crime against society,” Justice Satapathy observed.Appearing for the state, specially-engaged counsel for the case opposed the bail plea and informed the court that the petitioner had “nine criminal antecedents” to his credit. He alleged that accused and his associates had been instrumental in filing around 80 cases against different persons to arm twist them and obtain certain privileges.The court also took serious note of the petitioner’s alleged failure to disclose his criminal antecedents in the bail application, terming it “material suppression”. Holding that such suppression disentitled him from discretionary relief, the court rejected the plea and disposed of the bail application.
