Bombay High Court : Police Personnel Cannot Force A Lawyer To Tell Whereabouts Of His Client
Bombay High Court : Police Personnel Cannot Force A Lawyer To Tell Whereabouts Of His Client
Very recent, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has noticed that police personnel can’t force lawyers to disclose the whereabouts of their clients.
A Bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Pushpa Ganediwali made this ruling in a lawyer’s plea who was asked to visit the police station with his client or give information about her. The Bench ruled that prima-facie such a notice can’t be issued to a lawyer asking him to disclose information about the client.
During the hearing of the case, the Court had asked the APP to take instructions regarding the arguments raised.
Thereafter, a reply was filed in the Bombay High Court by the Assistant Commissioner of Police explaining the impugned letter was a request for cooperation and not a notice or an order.
The Bench further stated that it does not find such an explanation acceptable but as the ACP has clarified that the letter was a request, if the petitioner over look the letter, then there are no adverse consequences. With this explanation, the Court disposed of the petition.
The petitioner (Advocate Tarun Parmar) moved the Bombay High Court after police wrote to him directing him to produce his client at the police station in an extortion case that her employer had filed against the client.
The client had accused her employer of rape and also under relevant provisions of the Atrocities Act
Cri.W.P.No.826/21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.826/2021
Tarun Chaturbhai Parmar
Vs.
The Commissioner of Police, Nagpur and Ors.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's
orders or directions and Registrar's orders
Shri S. M. Uke, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri T.A. Mirza, A.P.P. for Respondents/State.
CORAM : M. S. SONAK AND PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA , J J .
DATE : 29/11/2021
- Heard Mr. S. M. Uke, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
- The challenge in this petition is to the notice/ letter No.2771/2021 dated 16.11.2021 requiring the petitioner to attend the Police Station and give information regarding whereabouts of his client (name is withheld). At least, prima facie, we find that such a letter/notice could not have been issued to an Advocate requiring him or her to diverge any information about his or her client. Therefore, we adjourned this matter to enable Mr. T. A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor to obtain instructions.
- The respondent No.2 i.e. Assistant Commissioner of Police has now filed response before us offering the same explanation. Again, at least, prima facie, we do not find such explanation to be acceptable. But, the Assistant Commissioner of Police in paragraph No.5 of his response has stated that the impugned letter/notice dated 16.11.2021 is neither an order nor a notice issued to the Advocate but, the same is a request letter to help the police. The response states that if the petitioner is not interested in helping the Investigating Officer, then the petitioner is entitled to ignore the letter dated 16.11.2021.
- In such matters, there is no question of Advocates being required to help the Investigating Agencies one way or the other, particularly when the Advocates are discharging their professional duties to their clients. However, now that it is clarified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police that the impugned letter/notice dated 16.11.2021 was only a request and there is no question of any adverse consequences, even if, the petitioner ignores the same. We do not propose to take this matter any further.
- By accepting the aforesaid clarification, we dispose of this petition. There shall be no order for costs.
- Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA,
J. S. SONAK, J. R Gurnule
Uploaded on - 30/11/2021
Downloaded on - 04/12/2021 15:02:39
