'Why Not Ask CBI To Investigate?' : Supreme Court Asks Haryana Police In Case Where Advocate Was Arrested

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the State of Haryana why the murder case in which an advocate was arrested should not be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a writ petition filed by Advocate Vikram Singh challenging his arrest and remand in the case. The advocate alleged that he was arrested to extract information about his clients. Last week, the Court had ordered the interim release of the lawyer.

Today, Sr Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that third-degree torture was meted out on the lawyer.  

"When he was in their custody, he was tied to the pole all night and made to sleep like that. Then WhatsApp messages were being sent in spite of your lordships specifically said WhatsApp messages are not permitted...he was given third degree torture. He was threatened that his hair will be cut, and his hair was immediately cut when he went to the police station." 

Singh further explained that the police was pressuring the lawyer to get a gangwar dispute on the ground that he was respresenting gangsters. He asked how could a lawyer settle a matter between hardened gangsters. Singh urged the court to confirm the interim bail and also refer the matter to the CBI, considering the seriousness of the matter. 

The bench was also told that despite the order of this Court granting him bail on November 12, the petitioner was released only the next day, November 13 at 8:30 PM.

The Counsel for the state authorities responded that the petitioner submitted his bail bond only the next day in Court and was subsequently released.  The State's counsel also alleged that the petitioner was making misleading statements, and asserted that the arrest was duly made after supplying the grounds of arrest. The State also submitted that it was the petitioner who initiated WhatsApp conversations with the investigating officer.

He also objected to the matter being referred to the CBI, as the Special Task Force was probing into the murder, and transferring the present issue would lead to transferring the complete probe. 

The CJI interject, "So what is the issue ? The CBI will investigate it much better."

The bench asked the State authorities to file their response. The matter will now be heard tomorrow. 

Singh was arrested by the Gurugram Special Task Force on October 31 and was remanded to 14 days of judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, on November 1.

The FIR is registered in relation to the murder of one Suraj Bhan, who was allegedly shot dead by the gang of Kapil Sangwan @ Nandu. Vikram Singh's client Jyoti Prakash @ Babu was arrested in the case on March 16, 2024.

According to the petition, Singh had filed several applications in court alleging that his client was being ill-treated in police custody.

Singh stated in the petition that the Investigating Officer had issued him notices under Section 41A of the CrPC, demanding that he appear before the police and disclose information regarding his clients, including Kapil Sangwan. He alleged that when he visited the police station on October 31 in response to such a notice, he was arrested without justification.

In his Article 32 petition, Singh has described his arrest as an “exceptional case” warranting the Supreme Court's intervention, asserting that it represents a direct assault on the independence of the Bar.

“The manner of arrest, following a nineteen-month silence after FIR registration when all other accused stand released on bail, reveals a calculated attempt to intimidate and punish a member of the Bar for fearless representation of his clients,” the petition states.

It further alleges that the coercive action was undertaken in defiance of constitutional safeguards, sending “a chilling message to the legal fraternity” and undermining the rule of law.

The plea emphasises that it is a settled principle of law that an advocate cannot be compelled to disclose client-related information or be subjected to coercive action for discharging professional duties. Doing so, the petition argues, “strikes at the very root of the rule of law and the right to legal representation.”

Reference is also placed on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court directing the police officers not to summon advocates to get clients' details.

Additionally, the petitioner had informed the STF officials about the Tervi Sanskar, the 13th-day Hindu funeral ritual, scheduled for 16.10.2025, following his grandfather's death. Despite being fully aware of his family obligations and the recent bereavement, the STF Gurugram authorities arrested him on 31.10.2025, showing complete disregard for basic human sensitivity.

The Petitioner further states that this was not the first instance of coercive or intimidating conduct. After the registration of FIR No. 58/2024, the then In-charge of STF Gurugram, Mr. Narender Chauhan, had contacted him seeking privileged advocate-client communications, issuing threats of further criminal cases, including MACOCA, and warning that he would face humiliation in custody. These threats were later carried out when the petitioner was sent to judicial custody.

The petition was drafted by Bhanu Pratap Singh, Kehshav Singh, Md. Imran Ahmad Advocates. It was filed through Arjun Singh Bhati.

Case Details : VIKRAM SINGH Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.| W.P.(Crl.) No. 471/2025