Lawyer moves Allahabad High Court alleging harassment by Police to elicit information, whereabouts of former client

A lawyer has approached the Allahabad High Court alleging that Uttar Pradesh Police is subjecting her to harassment and compelling her to disclose details about communication with one of her past clients, a girl and a boy from different religions on whose behalf she had filed a petition seeking police protection..The lawyer Chaman Ara, had filed a petition for security of the girl and a boy but the same was dismissed as infructuous since a first information report (FIR) came to be registered against the boy for offences under Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020.Ara in her present plea claimed that the police is harassing her in connection with the said FIR and compelling the her to produce the victim girl, failing which it is threatening to take coercive action against her.A Bench of Justices Manoj Kumar Gupta and Deepak Verma, on Wednesday ordered that the Police shall not subject the petitioner to any kind of harassment in connection with the FIR. The Court also asked the standing counsel of UP to obtain specific instructions from Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly as to whether phone of the petitioner has been kept on surveillance, as alleged, and, if so, under whose order and on what basis."In the meantime, learned Standing Counsel shall obtain specific instructions from Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly as to whether phone of the petitioner has been kept on surveillance, as alleged, and, if so, under whose order and on what basis," the Court said .The counsel for petitioner, Senior Advocate IK Chaturvedi, submitted that the petitioner, apart from filing a writ petition on behalf of the victim girl and boy in her capacity as an advocate, is in no manner connected with the incident nor is she aware of whereabouts of the victim girl.He further submitted that information available with the petitioner is confidential and immune from disclosure under Section 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The investigator had exceeded his authority in subjecting the petitioner to interrogation and forcing her to divulge information regarding accused and victim, it was argued."She cannot be compelled to be a witness or disclose the details of communication with her client. The police is visiting her house at odd hours and subjecting her to harassment," Chaturvedi argued.On the other hand, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj took a stand that Prayagraj police is not involved in investigation of the case, and it had only provided logistic support to the police party, which had came from Bareilly to Prayagraj in search of victim and accused.."The Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly in Para 4 of the instructions has mentioned that on 14.08.2021, police party of District Bareilly went to a house at Muirabad. During course of investigation, it came across petitioner, who disclosed her identity as Advocate of accused persons. The investigator tried to elicit information from the petitioner in relation to accused persons but did not get any satisfactory reply and, thereafter, left the house of the petitioner," the Court noted.It then proceeded to record that the petitioner shall not be subject to any kind of harassment."Having regard to the stand taken by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly in regard to the petitioner, it is hereby provided that the petitioner shall not be subjected to any kind of harassment in course of investigation of Case Crime No.172 of 2021, under sections 354, 366, 368, 506 I.P.C. & 3/5(1) Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020," the order said..The matter will be heard again on Thursday..[Read Orders]