'Disturbing; Attempt To Know Privileged Communication': Jharkhand HC Stays Railway Police Summons To Accused's Lawyer

Taking strong exception to a summons issued to a Dhanbad-based advocate [Agniva Sarkar] under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1996, a bench of Justice Ananda Sen said that prima facie it appeared to be an attempt to extract details of privileged communication.

"Summoning of an Advocate, who is defending the accused, by the Investigating Officer, who is investigating the crime, is really disturbing. Any communication between an Advocate and his client, no matter what is the status of his client, is a privileged communication. Whatever he has communicated with the accused, cannot be forced to be divulged before any Investigating Officer",” the bench observed in its order.

The Bench was essentially hearing the plea filed by the petitioner, a practising lawyer in the Civil Court, Dhanbad, challenging the summons (dated 24.07.2025) issued by the Railway Protection Force (RPF) in connection with a case under Section 3 of the RP(UP) Act.

The summons required the petitioner to appear for an enquiry under Section 8 of the Act on July 27, 2025, a Sunday and to record his statements.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lawyer is representing 3-4 accused in the same case and has been summoned solely on the basis of the confessional statement of a co-accused.

The bench was apprised that the alleged confessional statement recorded that the petitioner is acting as their defence counsel, and he had assured them he would secure bail. It was argued that on this material, the petitioner had been summoned for an enquiry.

After examining the alleged confessional statement, the Court remarked that summoning an advocate on such a basis was 'really disturbing'.

"Thus, prima facie, this Court feels that only to know the details of the privileged communication, this summon has been issued. This is unfortunate", the Court said.

Taking up the matter on priority, noting the seriousness and urgency involved, the Court directed the RPF authorities to file a counter-affidavit within four weeks. The Assistant Solicitor General of India was requested to appear on behalf of the respondents.

In the meantime, by way of an interim measure, the Court provided that the impugned notice dated 24.7.2025, issued by respondent No. 3, will remain stayed.

It also restrained the authorities from issuing any similar notices to the petitioner until the disposal of the writ petition.

The matter will next be heard on September 10.

In related news, last year, the Allahabad High Court had taken exception to the actions of the accused's counsels, who had sent emails to Enforcement Directorate officers requesting them to file a counter-affidavit, as directed by the court, in a case involving their client.

Recently, the Uttar Pradesh Government had informed the Allahabad High Court that it would be framing pan-state guidelines restraining the police personnel from visiting places under litigation without leave of the Court and from directly contacting advocates representing parties in sub-judice matters.

On July 11, the Allahabad HC had taken a serious note of allegations while underscoring that the trend of investigating lawyers for pursuing their professional duties was not acceptable.

Read more about the case here: 'Undermines Judicial System, Harshest Penalty Required': Allahabad HC Deprecates Trend Of Prosecuting Agencies Targeting Lawyers

Earlier this month, the Top Court's had taken a prima facie view that summoning of legal professionals by prosecuting agencies/police in relation to client information or advice given is untenable and a threat to the autonomy of the legal profession.