Advocate Mehmood Pracha's Office Raid: Delhi Court Summons Investigating Officer And Direct Production Of Entire Video Footage of Search

A Delhi Court on Friday has summoned an Investigating Officer connected with cases arising out of the Delhi riots over the CAA, besides requiring him to produce the entire video footage of a search conducted by the Delhi Police at the office of an advocate appearing in the matter.

The order of Duty MM Anshul Singhal, Patiala House Court came on an application moved by advocate Mehmood Pracha seeking preservation of copies of the video footage of the raids conducted by Delhi police at his office on Thursday.

Pracha stated that he has moved an application under sections 165(5) and 156(3) of the CrPC before the trial court. He submitted that he has filed an application under section 93 CrPC yesterday before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the IO was asked to file a reply on the said application and the matter was put up before the Duty MM for today.

Section 165(5) prescribes that in the event of a search by a police officer, copies of any record made shall forthwith be sent to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence, and the owner or occupier of the place searched shall, on application, be furnished, free of cost, with a copy of the same by the Magistrate.

"The Assistant Ahlmad of the Court has reported that he has not received any record from the Court of the CMM. He furthermore says that he has tried to contact the reader of the Court of the CMM but has not received any response. The applicant has submitted before this Court that his colleague has spoken telephonically with the Ahlmad of the Court of the CMM and he has stated that the application has been sent to the court of the Duty MM yesterday itself through the Dak peon", noted the judge on Friday.

Pracha further intimated the Court that the search was conducted at his office from 12 noon on December 24 till 3 AM on December 25 and according to the provisions of section 165 CrPC, Volume III, Chapter II, Part A, Rule 14 and 16, the IO should have intimated forthwith the search and the seized articles to the concerned Magistrate. However, he submitted that the same has not been done and therefore, he has filed the above application under section 165(5). He told the Court that the entire search was videographed as per the Court order of December 22. He submitted that he is entitled to a copy of the video footage.

"The applicant has further stated that one Mr Rajiv and the IO has threatened him that they will make a false case against them. Accordingly, the applicant has filed an application under section 156(3) CrPC for continuous monitoring of the case", observed the judge.

The Duty MM then proceeded to direct that the IO file reply to the application under section 165(5) CrPC by Sunday. The IO is further directed to remain present in the Court along with the entire video footage of any search conducted by him on the office premises of the applicant.

The judge further required the IO to file a status report in connection with one of the cases by January 5.

Click here to download the Order 

Read Order Here

Full View