Karnataka High Court stays probe against lawyer booked for representing murder suspect

The Karnataka High Court on Monday stayed the investigation against an advocate who was arrayed as an accused in a murder case allegedly because he represented the prime accused and since his office had CCTV cameras that the police wanted to examine [B Lokesh Vs State Of Karnataka]..Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order granting interim protection to the advocate. The judge also sharply questioned the conduct of the investigating officer, observing that his action appeared to be a "gross abuse of the process of law.".Senior Advocate DR Ravishankar appeared for the accused lawyer (petitioner). He told the Court that the petitioner was a practicing advocate who had merely appeared on behalf of the accused in a murder case. He argued that the FIR contained no allegations whatsoever against the petitioner and that he had been unnecessarily dragged into the criminal case..The Court noted that the crime had been registered for offences punishable under Sections 103 (murder) and 238 (destruction of evidence or giving false information) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and that the petitioner was not an accused when the FIR was initially registered. However, in the remand application, the investigating officer included the advocate's name on the ground that his office and residence were adjacent and CCTV footage from the premises needed to be examined.The Court opined that there could not be a clearer illustration of the misuse of criminal law than when advocates are implicated merely because the police wished to examine CCTV footage from his office or residence..Justice Nagaprasanna observed that if such a course were permitted, no citizen having CCTV cameras at home or in an office would be safe from being implicated in a criminal case, merely to facilitate the collection of evidence.The Court further observed that another apparent reason for implicating the petitioner was that he had appeared on behalf of the accused. It held that dragging an advocate into the web of crime for discharging his professional duty was, prima facie, an abuse of the legal process..The Bench has directed the State Public Prosecutor, BN Jagadeesh to obtain instructions from the investigating officer and explain why exemplary costs should not be imposed on him for implicating the advocate.The Court also observed that if the only reasons for arraigning the petitioner were those reflected in the record, it would consider directing a departmental inquiry against the investigating officer.Pending further consideration, the Court stayed the investigation against the petitioner and listed the matter for hearing on July 16.