ADVERTISEMENT
Supreme Court orders release of lawyer arrested by Haryana STFThe court directed that the advocate should be released forthwith on furnishing a bail bond of Rs 10,000 and fixed the matter for further hearing on November 19.
Ashish Tripathi
Last Updated IST
<div class="paragraphs"><p>The Supreme Court of India.</p></div>

The Supreme Court of India.

Credit: iStock Photo

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered immediate release of a Delhi-based advocate, Vikram Singh, arrested by the special task force (STF) of Haryana police in connection with a murder case. 

ADVERTISEMENT

A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria ordered for the release of the lawyer on bail, after hearing senior advocate Vikas Singh for the lawyer.

The court directed that the advocate should be released forthwith on furnishing a bail bond of Rs 10,000 and fixed the matter for further hearing on November 19.

The court directed its registrar (judicial) to communicate the order to the Gurugram police commissioner for immediate compliance.

Singh, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi since July 2019, was lodged in Faridabad Jail. 

His plea contended that instead of respecting the independence of the Bar, the investigating agency has sought to criminalise the petitioner's professional association with his clients, thereby undermining the rule of law and the sanctity of the advocate–client relationship.

It contended the petitioner has represented several clients in criminal cases between 2021 and 2025, including persons alleged to have connections with one Kapil Sangwan alias 'Nandu', which were undertaken purely in the discharge of his professional obligations and in conformity with the Advocates Act, 1961 and the standards of professional ethics.

It was claimed that the lawyer was targeted for filing an application in a court alleging custodial assault on one of his clients, Jyoti Prakash alias Baba, who reportedly suffered a leg fracture while in the STF custody.

The plea contended that the retaliatory action by the investigating agency culminated in his illegal arrest on October 31 without any written grounds or independent witnesses, in violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

ADVERTISEMENT
(Published 12 November 2025, 12:46 IST)