Supreme Court grants interim relief to lawyer accused of stealing court file

The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim protection from arrest to a lawyer accused of stealing a judicial file and a computer screen from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Ludhiana [Hardyal Inder Singh v. State of Punjab]..A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra issued notice to the State of Punjab on the lawyer's plea and posted the matter for hearing on January 3."Till the next date of hearing, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with FIR No. 44, dated 28th February, 2022, under Section 380 read with Sections 411, 427, 454, 409, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana, Punjab, subject to his joining the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Officer," the Court ordered..The petitioner, Hardyal Inder Singh, was booked for offences under Section 380 (theft in building), 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property), 427 (mischief), 454 (house-breaking), 409 (criminal breach of trust), 201 (disappearance of evidence) of Indian Penal Code.The complaint was filed by Karan Kumar, an Ahlmad (court clerk), who reported that the office was found unlocked and items were missing after a two-day court holiday.The investigation revealed that co-accused Chetan Kumar, who had access to the court premises, was seen on CCTV carrying the stolen computer screen. Chetan Kumar later implicated Deepak Dogra, another co-accused, who allegedly conspired with him to steal the judicial file, promising payment for the act. Deepak Dogra claimed that he handed over the stolen file to Singh, a practicing lawyer, on February 28, 2022.Singh moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court for anticipatory bail but the same was rejected.He denied any involvement, arguing that he was falsely implicated and that there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime. He contended that the allegations were based on contradictory statements made by the co-accused and that he had no motive to participate in the theft. Ultimately, the High Court denied anticipatory bail to him emphasizing the seriousness of the charges as the case involved the theft of crucial judicial documents, raising significant concerns about the integrity of the judicial process.Aggrieved, he approached the apex court which granted him relief. .Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave and advocates Nikhil Jain and Manish Verma appeared for the lawyer..[Read Order]