Court dismisses Delhi lawyer Pracha’s plea seeking video footage of office raid

Pracha represents several people accused of perpetrating violence or conspiring to cause the riots that ravaged north-east Delhi in February. His clients include Bhim Sena chief Chandrashekhar Azad and Gulfisha Fatima.

A Delhi court has dismissed a plea by advocate Mehmood Pracha seeking copy of the video footage of the search conducted at his office on December 24, 2020, in connection with an alleged cheating and forgery case arising of the north-east Delhi riots, while stating that the plea is legally not maintainable.

Additional sessions judge Dharmendra Rana rejected the plea by Pracha, who had challenged an earlier order of the duty magistrate who had refused to give the copy of the video footage but had instead preserved it. (Sanchit Khanna/HT PHOTO)

Pracha represents several people accused of perpetrating violence or conspiring to cause the riots that ravaged north-east Delhi in February. His clients include Bhim Sena chief Chandrashekhar Azad and Gulfisha Fatima.

Additional sessions judge Dharmendra Rana rejected the plea by Pracha, who had challenged an earlier order of the duty magistrate who had refused to give the copy of the video footage but had instead preserved it.

“Perusal of the section 165 (5) CrPC would reveal that IO is required to send the record forthwith to nearest magistrate and on application, the applicant is also entitled for a copy of the same. However the word “forthwith” classifies only the record sent to the magistrate and it is not the requirement of law that the record is also required to be ‘forthwith’ furnished to the applicant,” Rana said.

He had also alleged that the police had committed several illegal and criminal acts during the search, all of which will be clear when the video footage is perused. He said he fears the police will make every attempt to manipulate and tamper with the video footage so as to prevent their illegal and criminal acts from being exposed and which will also exonerate him.

“Perusal of the impugned order of December 27, 2020, would reveal that the prayer of the revisionist for supply of video footage has neither been denied nor has been conclusively determined,” the court said in its order of January 5.

On August 22, police registered an FIR against Pracha after one of the riot victims told a court that the lawyer has asked him to fake a deposition and frame three people in riot cases. Police had then told the court that they had filed a case against Pracha for giving false information to the court, cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy. The Karkardooma court had passed a direction asking the police to look into the allegation.

At the time itself, Pracha denied the police’s allegations and said that the case was meant to intimidate him. Pracha was also a prominent face of the protests against the citizenship amendment law .