Kerala High Court Makes NCB a Party in Case Against Lawyer Threatening Intelligence Officer

Kerala High Court is considering the petition of a 30-year-old lawyer accused of threatening an intelligence unit officer to quash the criminal case against him. While evaluating the lawyer's request, the court decided to include the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), an institution closely related to the subject, as an additional respondent in the case. This development represents a new stage in the legal process, questioning the legal grounds of the charges recorded by the local police and the fairness of the process.

Judge C.S. Dias, who rendered the decision seen as a significant development in the trial process, accepted the lawyer's request, adjourned the trial to a future date, and extended the interim protection measures. The court had previously issued a decision restricting the investigating officer from taking any coercive action against the petitioner lawyer and extended this interim order by one more week. The next hearing date has been set for Friday, July 10, during which a detailed review of the main features and allegations of the case is planned.

The basis of the current criminal case is the allegation by Ernakulam Town Police Station that certain provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) law were violated. The police allege that the lawyer committed the crimes of 'criminal threat' under Article 351(2) and 'threat of harm to a public servant' under Article 224. These charges were initiated upon the private complaint of the intelligence officer, and the legal dimension of the incident and the status of evidence will be opened to discussion in upcoming hearings.

According to allegations put forward by the prosecution, the location of the incident is the CBI Special Court building in Ernakulam, where the lawyer allegedly threatened an intelligence officer. It is claimed that this threat is related to the trials in a case where the lawyer's client was a defendant in an NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) case. Furthermore, it is argued that the threat was made to prevent the intelligence officer from performing his official duties.

However, the petitioner lawyer, approaching the issue from a different dimension, claims that he received harassing phone calls from the police and that the current accusation is actually a retaliation. The lawyer argues that this case was filed as a result of him advising his client to disclose the violence he was subjected to during custody while performing his professional duties. Additionally, stating that he faces the threat of being falsely implicated in drug cases, the lawyer applied to the judiciary for the complete quashing of the criminal case.