The Karnataka High Court has intervened, halting the investigation against a lawyer accused of involvement in a murder case. The advocate had been charged for representing the primary suspect and due to the presence of CCTV cameras in his office, which the police sought to review. This decision, rendered on Monday, was part of the case B Lokesh Vs State Of Karnataka, with Justice M Nagaprasanna presiding.
Justice Nagaprasanna provided interim relief to the lawyer by staying the investigation. He criticized the investigating officer’s actions, labeling them as a ‘gross abuse of the process of law.’ The advocate, represented by Senior Advocate DR Ravishankar, argued that he was merely performing his professional duty by representing the main accused in the murder case. He contended that the First Information Report (FIR) lacked any allegations against him and that he was inappropriately drawn into the criminal proceedings.
The court observed that the case was registered under Sections 103 (murder) and 238 (destruction of evidence or providing false information) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Initially, the advocate was not named in the FIR. However, his name was added to the remand application by the investigating officer on the grounds that his office, equipped with CCTV cameras, required examination.
Justice Nagaprasanna noted the concerning precedent such actions could set. He opined that implicating individuals merely for possessing CCTV cameras could lead to widespread misuse of criminal law. If allowed, this could result in any citizen with such surveillance equipment being wrongfully implicated to facilitate evidence gathering.
The judge also pointed out that another motive for implicating the advocate appeared to be his legal representation of the accused. He emphasized that involving a lawyer in criminal proceedings solely for fulfilling his professional obligations constitutes a prima facie abuse of legal procedure.
More Read
The court instructed State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesh to gather responses from the investigating officer, questioning whether exemplary costs should be levied for implicating the lawyer. The court also suggested that, should the reasons for implicating the advocate remain unsubstantiated, a departmental inquiry against the investigating officer might be warranted.
Pending further deliberation, the Karnataka High Court has stayed the investigation against the lawyer, scheduling the next hearing for July 16.
