A Supreme Court Bench watched CCTV footage of the alleged Ghaziabad assault of four advocates, then asked the Uttar Pradesh Police to account for its probe and ordered that no harm come to the petitioners. The allegations on both sides are untested.
New Delhi: Advocates who say they were attacked inside a Ghaziabad residential complex won a status report from the Uttar Pradesh Police in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, which also directed the authorities to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and property of the petitioners, in a plea over the alleged assault of four advocates, including a woman advocate [A Deepa & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order after viewing CCTV footage of the incident produced by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who appeared for the petitioners.
What the Bench said
Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked the State to examine the medical report relied on by the petitioners, which records a fracture, and take appropriate steps. In oral remarks, he said the accused in the cross-case have an equal right to have their grievances investigated, so the cross-FIR could not be stayed without hearing them.
One of the advocates, present in court, told the Bench that the accused had installed a CCTV camera facing their house and were following her family, and sought protection for her two daughters.
The Bench then directed the State to file a status report and to ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioners. The allegations on both sides are untested, the Court has expressed no view on the merits, and everyone accused in either FIR is presumed innocent.
What the State told the Court
Counsel for the State, appearing on limited instructions, said Section 74 BNS had since been added to the FIR, the investigating officer had been changed, the CCTV footage had been preserved and a preliminary medical report described the injuries as simple.
The advocates’ submissions
Calling the footage “shocking”, Vikas Singh submitted that the police had registered an FIR against the advocates three days after the incident while failing to arrest the alleged aggressors named in the advocates’ own FIR. He said the woman advocate was beaten and throttled, that none of the four advocates struck a blow, that the attackers were outsiders forming an unlawful assembly, and that one advocate suffered a fracture below his eye. He also claimed the CCTV footage had still not been seized.
He alleged that the original investigating officer was replaced although the victims had not sought it, and that the new officer was harassing the woman advocate with remarks on her profession and age. He sought addition of Section 109 BNS (attempt to murder) to the FIR and a stay of the cross-FIR.
The petition
The writ petition under Article 32 has been filed by advocates A Deepa, her husband Deb Kumar, Vipin Sharma and Anup Goyal. According to the petition, on October 22 Amit Varma and his son Rahul Varma brought a group of unidentified persons into a residential complex over a dispute about illegal construction, and the group assaulted the four advocates and others who tried to intervene.
The petitioners allege that the police registered their FIR under relatively minor provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, that a cross-FIR was registered against them on October 25, and that the investigating officer was changed. They seek a fair and impartial probe, preservation of the CCTV footage, invocation of proper penal provisions, protection for themselves and their families, transfer of the investigation to the Delhi Police and quashing of the cross-FIR.
Why the order matters
The order uses the Supreme Court’s Article 32 jurisdiction to monitor a local police investigation where complainants allege that the police are going slow on serious charges while moving quickly on a counter-case. A status report puts the burden on the State to show what it has done with the footage, the medical evidence and the choice of offences.
At the same time, the Bench’s refusal to stay the cross-FIR without hearing the other side reflects the settled position that both sets of complainants are entitled to a fair investigation, and that interim protection does not decide who was at fault.
Case Title: A Deepa & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [W.P.(Crl.) No. 457 of 2026]
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: November 3, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Vikas Singh for the petitioners; counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh