Lawyer Sent To Jail For Sending Birthday Wishes To Judge, Madhya Pradesh High Court To Hear Bail Plea

KEY TAKEAWAYS 

The Madhya Pradesh High Court will hear tomorrow a bail request documented by a legal counsellor who was imprisoned for sending birthday wishes to an appointed authority. 

The Indore Bench of the High Court will hear the matter tomorrow. 

BACKGROUND DETAILS 

On February 9, the Ratlam Police had captured advocate Vijaysingh Yadav after he sent Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Mithali Pathak an email and a birthday card on January 29.

It was asserted that he had downloaded Pathak's photograph from her Facebook account and connected it with the birthday wish/card. 

FURTHER DETAILS 

In the grievance, it has been asserted that Yadav had downloaded the photograph of the adjudicator with no approval and sent the email to her authority account.
 
 Further, since he was not added as a companion on the appointed authority's Facebook account, such 'unapproved access' or utilization of the photo would pull in arrangements of the Information Technology Act. 

The First Information Report (FIR) was held up for offenses under 

• Section 420 (Cheating and unscrupulously prompting conveyance of property),
• 467 (Forgery of important security ),
• 468 (Forgery for reason for cheating),
• 469 (Forgery for motivation behind hurting notoriety) of the Indian Penal Code and
• Section 41 read with 67 (Punishment for distributing or communicating revolting material in electronic type) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 

On February 13, the relatives of the charged had applied for abandon his benefit, however the equivalent was dismissed. 

This incited Yadav to move toward the Madhya Pradesh High Court. He will be addressed by advocate KK Gupta under the watchful eye of the High Court. 

CONCLUSIVE REMARKS 

In the bail supplication, Yadav has fought that he has been ensnared with superfluous and undesirable charges. He has presented that there was "no goal" to break down the standing of the adjudicator. Also, he has asserted that he doesn't have a lot of information about 'web access' and web-based media.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS MOVE OF THE ADVOCATE WAS JUSTIFIED? LET US KNOW YOUR OPINION IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!