In a hearing on Wednesday, 10 March, the Patiala House Court stayed the operation of the search warrant that had been issued against Delhi-based advocate Mehmood Pracha on 4 March.
Speaking to The Quint after the hearing, Pracha said the stay has been extended till 12 March as the court will take time to rule on Pracha’s application from last evening.
The stay on operations was issued after Pracha moved the court on 9 March, in light of Delhi Police officials showing up at his doorstep in Delhi’s Nizamuddin to conduct a second raid and seize his computer.
Pracha is handling several cases of the northeast Delhi violence, including appearing for UAPA accused Gulfisha Fatima, and has repeatedly said that seizing his computer could put the lives and security of his several other clients at risk.
What Does Pracha’s Application From 9 March Entail?
The application filed by Pracha calls for a modification of the previous order that allowed a search warrant. It states that the investigating officials’ demand for the hard disk and computer is illegal and unjustified as the “specific documents are already in their possession from the previous raid (alleged search) itself.” Since they already have the documents they are after, the plea states that “the insistence on seizing the hard drive is evidently to collect information and data belonging to the clients of the application who include whistleblowers and anti-corruption activists”.
“Why do they want my hard disk? They want to know if I sent the e-mail or not, right? I am ready to confess that the complaint in question was drafted by me, was drafted on my system and by using my internet. If I do not do this, and they take my entire computer, then the life of so many other clients of mine will be under threat. How can I afford that?” Pracha said, adding that he is willing to furnish any specific document sought, and refurnish what has already been taken from the last raid of 24 December.
In the plea, Pracha states that he is willing to concede to the allegation levelled against him. “...the applicant, being an advocate, is willing to concede to the allegations as to drafting of the complaint and its subsequent sending from his office, so that the basic premise for search and the seizure being sought does not stand any longer,” the application reads.
This allegation stems from another case registered against Pracha.
What is This Case About?
In a press note issued by Deputy Commissioner of Police from Delhi Police Special Cell Manishi Chandra after the first raid, details of the searches conducted at advocate Mehmood Pracha’s office were revealed. The allegation against Pracha under FIR 212/2020 dated 22 August is regarding him creating a concocted/fabricated complaint for a victim of the northeast Delhi riots.
The victim is called Irshad Ali, who was allegedly made to depose falsely in front of the court. “These findings were supported by the witnesses of this case who had recorded their testimonies under Section 164 of CrPC before the concerned Hon’ble Courts,” the report read.
Ali, whose shop was allegedly burnt and looted during the northeast Delhi riots, told the court that he could not identify the accused named in his complaint as he did not know who the people were. This happened in August 2020, after which the additional sessions judge Vinod Yadav directed the police to investigate the allegations, pass appropriate directions, and requested the Delhi Commissioner of Police to look into the matter.
In the police report from August 2020, the police had explained that, "During the investigation, he (Ali) was enquired about the names of Deepak, Navneet, and Mintu, as mentioned in his complaint. He said that he knows them by their names and does not know anything about them personally. He also stated that he does not identify the accused persons in the video."
PTI reported how the police report included Ali’s brother, Dilshad's statement as well. Dilshad had said they both were home when they got the call about the shop being looted and hence had not seen anyone looting their shop, contrary to the complaint submitted in his brother’s name.
Pracha says he is willing to risk self implication to protect the interest of other clients, “They want my computer, which I am not willing to give. Giving the entire computer will compromise the information of other clients whose life could be at stake. That is why, today I am making an offer and risking self implication in this matter by accepting that the statement in question was prepared at my office, using my computer, and sent using my office computer. I am willing to accept that to protect the interest of other clients which will be exposed if my computer is seized.”
What Does the Search Warrant Say?
The Delhi Police special cell obtained a search warrant on 4 March from the concerned court to seize a computer from Pracha’s office. The warrant, accessed by The Quint, states, “This is to authorise and require the investigating officer of this case to search and seize the computer having primary evidence/document which was identified on the previous search which is present at the office premises of Mr Mehmood Pracha.”
The order authorising the search states, “It is also directed that Ld Advocate be informed politely about the search proceedings to be carried out at his premises.” Contrary to what the court order states, Pracha claims that he was not informed of any such search. “They reached around 12 noon. At least a hundred of them showed up at my doorstep without ‘politely informing’ me about anything. The police officials knew I would not be present in office as I was undertaking a cross-examination of a Special Cell case, when they showed up at my office. Hence, I decided to go straight to court,” Pracha said.
“I am moving an application against this search warrant as the question about the earlier raid of the police being successful or not, is already pending before this court. There is the Delhi Police’s application that we did not allow them to conduct their search, and there is our application that states that the raid was completed and then Delhi Police officials returned to my office premises. Both are pending before the court. So without deciding on the applications, the same judge has given another search warrant.”
The Quint has reached out to Delhi Police for a response, the copy will be updated as and when they respond.
The last time Delhi Police Special Cell had searched the office of Mehmood Pracha was on 24 December 2020. The police action against him had triggered outrage, with several senior advocates and activists alleging that the search was a brazen violation of attorney-client privilege.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)