The single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice [Name], stayed the criminal proceedings against an advocate who had been arraigned as an accused in a murder case. The stay was granted after the court examined the conduct of the Investigating Officer (IO) in relation to the advocate’s residence and office, which are situated adjacent to the scene of the alleged offence and are equipped with closed‑circuit television (CCTV) cameras.
The court observed that the IO had directed the advocate to examine CCTV footage captured from his own adjoining premises. According to the bench, this direction raised serious concerns about the propriety of the investigative process. The bench characterised the IO’s action as appearing, on the face of the record, to be a gross abuse of the process of law.
In reaching this view, the court relied on the principle that an investigating agency must not compel a person to act in a manner that could prejudice his defence or create a conflict of interest. By requiring the advocate, who is himself an accused, to scrutinise footage from premises that are under his control, the IO risked influencing the advocate’s perception of the evidence and potentially compromising the fairness of the investigation.
The bench further noted that such a directive could be construed as an attempt to obtain self‑incriminating material from the accused, thereby infringing upon the protection afforded under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which safeguards an accused person against being compelled to be a witness against himself. While the court did not make a final determination on the constitutional issue at this stage, it held that the prima facie indication of abuse warranted an interim stay of proceedings to prevent any possible prejudice to the accused’s right to a fair trial.