Urgent Sunday Hearing: Allahabad HC Shields Lawyer from Alleged Police Retaliation

ALLAHABAD – In an extraordinary session convened on a Sunday, the Allahabad High Court has extended its protective arm over a member of the bar, granting interim protection from arrest to an advocate who alleged he was being targeted by a senior police official in a "telltale" act of mala fide prosecution. The case shines a harsh spotlight on the judiciary's role in safeguarding officers of the court and checking potential overreach by law enforcement.

A special Division Bench, comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar, was constituted following an urgent mention before the Chief Justice. The Bench directed that Advocate Awadhesh Mishra shall not be arrested until October 29, 2025, in connection with an FIR lodged against him under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for alleged organized crime, criminal conspiracy, and extortion. The order came just days after the Superintendent of Police (SP) of Fatehgarh, Arti Singh, was summoned by the same High Court in a separate, contentious habeas corpus matter.

This judicial intervention underscores a serious confrontation between the bar and the police, with the Court stepping in to examine allegations that an advocate was victimized merely for facilitating a citizen's access to justice.

The Genesis: A Habeas Corpus Petition and Allegations of Police Coercion

The sequence of events leading to the urgent Sunday hearing began with a habeas corpus petition filed in September by Preeti Yadav. She alleged that her husband had been unlawfully detained and subjected to torture by the Fatehgarh police. Advocate Awadhesh Mishra, a local practitioner in Fatehgarh, had advised Yadav to seek judicial remedy and connected her with Advocate Santosh Kumar Pandey, who formally filed the petition before the High Court.

The habeas corpus proceedings took a dramatic turn when it was revealed in court that police officials had allegedly coerced Preeti Yadav into signing documents. These papers reportedly contained a declaration that she had not filed any petition and that her husband was not in police custody—a direct contradiction of her plea to the court.

Appearing before the High Court, Yadav and her counsel stood by their original petition, categorically stating that the police had forced her to make the false declaration.

On October 9, 2025, a Division Bench led by Justice Munir took grave exception to these submissions. In a significant observation recorded in its order, the Court described the police's alleged actions as a "patent act of obstructing justice." Recognizing the severity of the allegations, the Court summoned SP Arti Singh and other officials to appear personally on October 14, 2025.

Allegations of Retaliation: A Raid, an FIR, and an Urgent Plea

The situation escalated rapidly following the High Court's summons. According to Advocate Mishra's petition for protection, the order summoning the SP triggered a swift and severe retaliatory campaign against him, orchestrated at the behest of SP Singh.

The timeline presented to the court is stark:

* October 9: The High Court summons SP Arti Singh, flagging the police's actions as a potential obstruction of justice.

* October 11: Just two days later, an FIR is registered against Advocate Mishra. The complaint, based on a 2020 case, accuses him of demanding ₹5 lakh from an accused in exchange for influencing a prosecutrix's testimony.

* October 11 (Evening): The same day the FIR was lodged, SP Singh, accompanied by approximately 100 constables, allegedly raided Mishra's residence. The plea details a scene of chaos and violence, alleging that Mishra's wife, son, and domestic servant were beaten and his household property was damaged.

Fearing imminent arrest and further harassment, Mishra’s counsels made an urgent mention before the Chief Justice on Saturday, October 18. Citing the "gravity and urgency" of the matter, the Chief Justice directed the immediate constitution of a special bench to hear the plea on Sunday, October 19—a move reserved for matters of exceptional importance.

The Court's Intervention: Prima Facie Mala Fides and Judicial Protection

During the Sunday hearing, counsel for Advocate Mishra argued that the timing and nature of the FIR were incontrovertible proof of mala fides. The lodging of a serious criminal case under the new BNS, immediately following the High Court's adverse order against the SP, was presented as a clear act of reprisal intended to intimidate and silence a lawyer who had assisted a petitioner against the police.

The Bench, after considering the submissions and the deeply concerning sequence of events, found sufficient grounds to intervene. In granting interim protection from arrest, the court has effectively put a judicial check on the police's actions, pending a fuller examination of the case. The court issued notices to all respondents, including SP Arti Singh, and has scheduled the next hearing for October 29, 2025.

The court's decision sends a powerful message about the sanctity of the judicial process and the indispensable role of advocates. By protecting an officer of the court from what is alleged to be punitive action by the state machinery, the Allahabad High Court has reinforced a fundamental principle: that access to justice cannot be chilled by fear of reprisal. The outcome of this case will be closely watched by the legal fraternity as a litmus test for judicial oversight and the protection of lawyers who dare to challenge the executive.