[Police summons to lawyer of accused] GHCAA, Gujarat Seniors bat for advocate Anik Kadri before Gujarat High Court

Senior stalwarts at the Gujarat bar appeared before the Gujarat High Court on Friday representing lawyer Anik Kadri, who was issued summons by the police after he filed Senior Advocate IH Syed’s anticipatory bail application [Aniq Asifqbal Kadri v State of Gujarat]..Kadri was the filing counsel for former Assistant Solicitor General and Senior Advocate IH Syed who was recently granted anticipatory bail by the Gujarat High Court in an extortion case.Kadri was issued a summons notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on he ground that he was harbouring the accused. Senior Counsel Mihir Joshi and Percy Kavina appeared and argued today before single-judge Justice Samir J Dave in the plea seeking quashing of the Section 41A notice. Joshi told that the Court that if a lawyer is summoned by the police for performing his duty, it would have a chilling effect. He said that a notice under Section 41A was completely unsustainable against an advocate representing an accused. "The court will have to draw a distinction that a lawyer asking an accused to come to his office for the purpose of instructions can be said to be harbouring! Where to draw the line?".Joshi said that the petitioner was sent the notice for providing "illegal assistance", however there was no such offence and this was an extremely vague allegation. It was further contended that if an indirect insinuation of harbouring or sheltering is made, any advocate handling an anticipatory bail matter would be fearful of such a notice. "This would chill applications by an accused. Every lawyer will think twice.".Additionally, it was argued that "harbouring" would never apply to a lawyer due to the profession's standards."He's bound to assist an accused. What the respondent has done is a little startling in the context of a lawyer's role. How does harbouring apply to a lawyer who is filing a case," Joshi demanded. .Therefore, he underscored the need for guidelines to be issued by the court to ensure that the police do not use the provision as a tool of pressure."This case warrants consideration and deserves consideration and directions on interpretation of 41-A in the context of an advocate representing an accused," Joshi submitted. .Senior Advocate Percy Kavina appeared for the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association (GHCAA). The association had filed an intervention application in the plea after passing a unanimous resolution on Thursday expressing solidarity with Kadri..Kavina highlighted the importance of a lawyer's role in the justice delivery system while stating that it was being attacked by the state."It is trite to say that these are two wheels of the chariot of justice. Today, we bring before Your Lordship, a state of facts where one of the wheels is being attacked, and we have the might of the state attacking it with full rigour," he submitted. .He informed the court that the GHCAA has taken the case very seriously because if the office of an advocate was weakened, it would shake the foundations of our republic. "If you don't protect the citizen from the depredations of the executive, who does? Without advocates how does a citizen know the law, get access to courts?", he asked the court. Kavina also discussed the chilling effect it would cause if a lawyer who is simply doing his duty is subjected to such action..Public prosecutor RC Kodekar appearing for the respondents, assured the counsel that no action would be taken against the petitioner till the next date of hearing of the case. The case will be heard next on June 21, 2022..The case stems from action against another lawyer IH Syed for whom Kadri had acted as filing counsel.Syed was recently granted anticipatory bail by the Gujarat High Court in an extortion case. The Court had opined that the case seemed to have been instituted with the aim to injure or humiliate Syed particularly since he was a soft target.Syed had moved the application apprehending arrest for the offences of offences of extortion, criminal conspiracy, unlawful assembly, rioting, voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult, criminal intimidation and wrongful confinement.The order came shortly after the Additional Sessions Court had denied anticipatory bail to Syed in the matter on May 30, and a coordinate bench of the High Court refused to quash the complaint on June 2.