Delhi High Court stays search warrants issued against advocate Mehmood Parcha

New Delhi [India], December 15 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Thursday stayed the search warrants issued for searching the office premises of advocate Mehmood Pracha. Delhi police had obtained search warrants for searching his office premises in a matter related to the alleged fabricated affidavit filed in a Delhi riots case.
Justice Jasmeet Singh stayed the search warrants till the next date of hearing. He also issued notice to Delhi police and directed to file a status report.
The court has listed the matter on January 13 for further hearing.
The special public prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad accepted the notice. However, he submitted that he can’t disclose the line of investigation. He will share the same with the court only.
Advocate RHA Sikander counsel for Mehmood Parcha submitted that Delhi police searched the premises for 10 hours. Police have seized all the documents. We can’t hand over the entire computer to the police. He is not an accused in the matter.
Advocate Sikander also submitted that the CD of the computer is lying sealed in the office. Police can take the same for the investigation. We will give a certificate under 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
For what purpose the entire computer is required, he questioned. There are a number of emails related to various clients.
SPP Amit Prasad argued that he today can’t disclose the line of investigation. We will seize the CPU and send it to FSL, CFSL or SIPAD, whichever the petitioner wants it to send.
The court asked the SPP, “Can permit the entire computer to take away? Tell us what you want?”
The court also asked, ” Can I say that u go and search every computer in the premises in the premise of the petitioner?”
Amit Prasad submitted that if it can be done in the case of Unitech, so why not in this case?
This matter is related to the investigation of an affidavit which was notarized by a Notary who had expired 2 years back before attesting it, SPP argued.
Prasad also argued that it is not about the document, there is metadata. The certificate of 65B will have not any relevance if the movement of the metadata is changed.
Advocate Sikander argued that Delhi police searched my office on 24 Dec 2020 for more than 10 hours and took all the documents.
The SPP opposed the argument and said the search was obstructed and an FIR was lodged in this regard.
The petitioner had challenged the of March 2 and 25, 2021 passed by a chief metropolitan magistrate of Patiala House. He also challenged the order of November 5, 2022, passed by the Rohini court. He also sought the cancellation of search warrants issued by the Patiala House court on different dates including that of December 22, 2020, and March 4, 2021.
The petition moved through advocate Jatin Bhat, Sanwar and others said that the Petitioner, a practising advocate, is aggrieved by the issuance of search warrants, and dismissal of the application/revision petition filed by him against the issuance of such search warrants.
It is also submitted that the Police essentially seek certain documents from the computer of the Petitioner, and had already seized the said document during the execution of an earlier such warrant.
Nevertheless, the Petitioner is again willing to supply the said documents in compliance of the Provisions of Section 91 CrPC., but the Police are insistent upon seizing the entire computer of the Petitioner, which contains sensitive data of thousands of clients of the Petitioner, the petition submitted. (ANI)