New Delhi: Hours after Delhi police completed a 15-hour raid on his Nizamuddin West office, defender Mehmood Pracha alleged that the raids were carried out at the behest of the Union Interior Minister Amit Shah. Pracha – WHO has been fighting the cases of large numbers of victims of the North East Delhi riots – alleged that he has been trying to establish Shah’s links to violence.
Pracha also claimed that the police have been forcing many Muslim victims to withdraw their complaints and accused one complainant of using a statement obtained by force under article 164 to attack him.
Talking to The wirePracha said that during the raid, a team from the Delhi Police Special Cell made a copy of his computer data. “They had brought specialized equipment and they also hacked my computer.”
He said that it was clear to him that “[home minister] Shah sent them ”.
The raid, which began at 12:40 p.m. on December 24, continued until around 3 a.m. on December 25. It was related to a case in which a Delhi court had asked the Delhi police to investigate allegations that Pracha had “instructed” some victims. and witnesses in the Delhi riots case to give “false statements”.
According to the police report, Ali, a victim of the riots, told police that they asked him to identify an eyewitness named Sharif, a witness in another case, whom he allegedly did not know.
In his order, additional sessions judge Vinod Yadav had ordered the Delhi Police Commissioner to instruct the special cell or branch of crime to investigate the accusations against Pracha.
Pracha had denied these accusations saying: “The accusations against me are that a client came to see me, and after a few days he left because he was disappointed that I did not make any ‘scenarios’ for him with the judge or the police – that I’m just fighting the case legally. “
However, in compliance with the order, Delhi Police Additional PRO Anil Mittal said: “A criminal case was registered under the relevant sections of the law and the investigation was launched.” He added: “During the course of the investigation, search warrants were obtained from the court to search for electronic and other evidence at the premises of two members of the Bar Association and are being professionally executed in Nizamuddin and Yamuna Vihar. “
The search warrant, issued on December 22, read: “This is to authorize and require the investigating officer of this case to search for said incriminating documents and metadata in the outbox of the email identification … / premises. .. including the email identification outbox … as well as other offices / premises where the presence of such evidence is detected during the search / investigation and, if found, present the same immediately before this court ” .
However, Pracha alleged: “The real intention was that they wanted to take my hard drive because it contained complaints against the RSS and the BJP with which we would have connected Shah with the riots in northeast Delhi. But how could they have taken it? Also, did you expect me to have only one copy? “
Pracha said that all central agencies were after him. “Whether the IB, NIA – they all haunt me. The NIA has also questioned me before, but they couldn’t find anything against me either. Shah is behind me, but I am also behind him, ”he said, claiming that there was a link between the minister and BJP leader Kapil Mishra, widely accused of being a key instigator of the unrest.
‘Attack on lawyers’
“The biggest problem here is that it is an action against a lawyer,” he said. He explained that an attorney cannot be blamed if a client makes a false presentation.
“For the sake of argument, if a person goes to a lawyer and says that this or that thing has happened to him and you are kind enough to write my report, or that he files a response on our behalf to a police notification, then a lawyer write the complaint or response solely on the basis of what is communicated to him. If the information transmitted to the lawyer is incorrect, will the police proceed against the defender or the complainant? ” I ask.
Furthermore, he said, a lawyer is legally obliged not to reveal to a third party what is being discussed between him and his client. “I told the strike team. So this is an attack on the lawyer who represents the last bastion that is prepared to take over the powers that be.
Speaking of the present case, he said that a person had approached him to file a complaint on his behalf, or to respond to a notification under section 160 or to submit a statement under section 161 (of CrPC). “Now they [the police] they are saying that he [the person] he had filed a ‘false report’ and is saying that he did not file this report. This is the subject for which more than 200 policemen came me office and surrounded her. How was this such a big problem? “
Pracha also claimed that the police were forcing Muslim victims of the riots to withdraw their complaints. “Second, they threatened hundreds of people in the Muslim community or filed ‘bogus cases’ against them to force them to withdraw their complaints. [in the northeast Delhi riots cases]. In this case they also threatened him [the person mentioned above] and I got a statement filed under section 164. How difficult is that for the police? “he asked again.
Furthermore, Pracha insisted that there were hundreds of examples of pressure exerted on whistleblowers. “The people whose video recordings are there later claimed that they suffered no harm, that their stores were not looted, because the police scared them. These have been our complaints from the beginning. This is what we have been fighting for. We have also been trying to establish the link between the riots and the Shah and we trust [proving] that … it is not possible for them to scare me, they can only kill me, ”he said.
Pracha said he has full faith in court proceedings and wants people to keep their faith in the constitution as well. “We are doing everything through the courts. We want to make sure that ordinary citizens do not lose their faith in the country’s constitution. We want to show that even in such difficult times people can get relief from the courts. We also want to send a message to the weaker sectors of society that no matter how many sectors of the judiciary, the media or the police may be compromised, do not lose faith in the constitution; our system can still do them justice. “
‘Leading defenders criticize the raid’
Meanwhile, various advocates have criticized the raids in Pracha. The main defender of the Supreme Court, Indira Jaising, described it as “a direct attack on the fundamental right to legal representation.”
The raids against Mahmood Pracha Advocate for the defense in the case of the Delhi riots is a direct attack on the fundamental right of the right to legal representation, all lawyers must condemn this attack.
– Indira Jaising (@IJaising) Dec 24, 2020
Supreme Court defender Karuna Nundy also urged attorneys to defend Pracha, tweeting that through the raids the police will have access to a large amount of data that is protected by attorney-client privilege.
By seizing Adv Mehmood Pracha computers for private emails, the police will gain a large amount of data that is protected by attorney-client privilege. This goes to the heart of the rule of law. Lawyers must defend Adv Pracha as well as Adv P. Bhushan. https://t.co/t9YHTIwNDh
– Karuna Nundy (@karunanundy) Dec 24, 2020
Another defender, Rishikesh Kumar, who is an additional permanent attorney for the Delhi government, also expressed his anger on Twitter by tweeting: “An attorney’s office to be raided in this manner is highly reprehensible. The raids on Mahmood Pracha, defense attorney, are a direct attack on the fundamental right to legal representation. As a lawyer, I strongly condemn this, it is not acceptable at all. “
An attorney’s office to be raided like this is highly reprehensible.
The raid on Mahmood Pracha Lawyer for the Defense is a direct attack on the fundamental right of the right to legal representation.
As a lawyer, I strongly condemn this, it is not acceptable at all.– RishiKesh Kumar (@rishikeshlaw) Dec 24, 2020
.
