The Supreme Court criticized the Gurugram STF after a Delhi advocate alleged illegal arrest and coercion for representing accused clients. The Court stressed that even gangsters are entitled to legal representation, ordering immediate protection for the lawyer.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on 19 October questioned the conduct of the Gurugram Police Special Task Force (STF) over allegations that Delhi-based advocate Vikram Singh, arrested in a murder case, was tortured and not released immediately despite a clear order from the apex court.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh told the bench that the conduct of the STF was not only illegal but “extremely serious.”
Senior Advocate’s Allegations
During the hearing, Sr. Adv. Vikas Singh informed the Court that although the Supreme Court had directed immediate release, the advocate was freed only the next day at 12:30 p.m.
Singh said:
“He was released only the next day. He was tied to a pole through the night and forced to sleep that way. They said he couldn’t leave without the lower court’s permission, despite this Court’s order. His hair was cut off, and he was subjected to third degree torture.”
Calling the STF’s conduct shocking, he added:
“The way the STF is operating is shocking.”
According to Singh, the police action stemmed from a coerced statement by a co-accused:
“That’s based solely on the statement of a co-accused in custody given under pressure, to make him implicate others. When he refused, he was arrested.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court to Hear Plea of Delhi Advocate Arrested by Haryana STF in Murder Case
CJI B.R. Gavai questioned the State on why the Court’s bail order was not implemented immediately. Responding to the suggestion that Vikram Singh had defended an alleged gangster, the CJI remarked:
“So what if he represented a gangster? Even the most hardened criminals are entitled to legal representation.”
The bench then pressed the State on the delay in release:
CJI: “When was he actually released?”
Singh: “The next day at 12:30 p.m.”
When the respondent argued that the accused was in judicial custody and was released after submitting bail bonds, the CJI asked pointedly:
“Did you or did you not know about the Supreme Court’s order?”
State’s Stand
The respondent authority stated:
“He submitted the bail bonds and was released.”
They maintained that the chargesheet indicates he was part of a gangster group and that he was not summoned “in his capacity as a lawyer.”
Supreme Court Orders
With serious allegations before it, the Supreme Court directed the State to file its response on the application seeking transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
CJI: “File your reply on the application seeking transfer to the CBI by tomorrow.”
Respondent: “We need a week.”
CJI: “Then file by today 4:30.”
Eventually, the bench granted one more day for the reply.
Earlier Supreme Court Order
In an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court had granted interim protection to the Delhi-based advocate after he alleged that officers of the Gurugram STF unlawfully detained and coerced him for representing clients facing criminal charges. A Bench led by CJI BR Gavai issued notice and directed that the advocate be released forthwith upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹10,000.
The Court noted that the petitioner was a practicing advocate, unlikely to abscond, and that he had alleged custodial intimidation and arrest without being informed of the grounds, raising concerns under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
The Bench also took note of the petitioner’s claim that his arrest was retaliation for filing an application before a trial court concerning an alleged custodial assault on one of his clients. Finding the allegations serious, the Court allowed dasti service of notice and listed the matter for next Wednesday.
Case Title:
VIKRAM SINGH V STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
W.P.(Crl.) No. 471/2025
READ LIVER COVERAGE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Murder Case
