Allahabad High Court Questions Police Officer's Conduct In Interrogating & Frequently Visiting Lawyer Of An Inter-Religious Couple

The Allahabad High Court has called for an explanation from an SHO of Bareilly District regarding his conduct in relation to interrogation and frequent visits to the home of a Lawyer who had represented an inter-religious couple in their protection plea filed before the Court.

The Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Deepak Verma was hearing the plea of a lawyer, Chaman Aaara who has alleged that the Uttar Pradesh Police is subjecting her to harassment and compelling her to disclose details about her communication with a runaway couple (her previous clients) from different religions.

The matter before the Court

The Lawyer had filed a protection plea on behalf of the married Girl (22-year-old) and a Boy (27-year-old) which came for arguments on August 13, wherein, it was submitted before the Court by the state, that an FIR has been lodged in the case and therefore, the plea became infructuous. 

As per the Petitioner, Aara, once the plea became infructuous, she had nothing to do with the inter-religious coupe, however, on August 14, 2021, the police party of District Bareilly went to Lawyer Aara's house at Muirabad and tried to elicit information from her in relation to the inter-religious couple.

It was alleged that the investigator had acted wholly malafidely in interrogating the petitioner knowing well that she was only a lawyer of accused and that the investigator had exceeded his authority in subjecting the petitioner to interrogation and forcing her to divulge information regarding the accused and victim.

Importantly, it was also submitted that the information available with the petitioner is confidential and immune from disclosure under Section 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Court's observations

The Court noted that a police party from district Bareilly had come to Prayagraj in course of investigation of Case Crime no.172/2021 under Sections 354, 366, 368, 506 IPC and Section 3/5 (1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020.

It was admitted, the Court noted, in the instructions forwarded by Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly to learned Standing Counsel that the police party from Bareilly went to the house of the petitioner and subjected her to interrogation.

Against this backdrop, having regard to the assertions made in the Supplementary affidavit, the Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly to enquire into the matter and take appropriate remedial action.

The Court has directed him to shall file his personal affidavit disclosing the action taken.

Also, the Court has directed the SHO concerned to remain present on September 6, 2021, before this Court to explain his conduct in relation to interrogation and frequent visits to the home of the petitioner.

Advocate Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

Case Title - Chaman Aara v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Click here To Download Order

Read Order