The Supreme Court on Friday provided interim protection from arrest to a lawyer facing allegations of stealing a judicial file and a computer screen from the Chief Judicial Magistrate's court in Ludhiana.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra issued a notice to the State of Punjab regarding the lawyer's plea and scheduled the matter for hearing on January 3.

"Till the next date of hearing, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with FIR No. 44, dated 28th February, 2022, under Section 380 read with Sections 411, 427, 454, 409, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana, Punjab, subject to his joining the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Officer," the Court ordered.

The petitioner, Hardyal Inder Singh, has been charged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 380 (theft in a building), Section 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property), Section 427 (mischief), Section 454 (house-breaking), Section 409 (criminal breach of trust), and Section 201 (causing the disappearance of evidence). 

The case originated from a complaint by Karan Kumar, an Ahlmad (court clerk), who discovered the office unlocked and items missing after a two-day court holiday. During the investigation, CCTV footage revealed co-accused Chetan Kumar, who had access to the court premises, carrying a stolen computer screen. Chetan later implicated Deepak Dogra, another co-accused, alleging that Dogra conspired with him to steal a judicial file, promising payment for the act. Dogra, in turn, claimed to have handed over the stolen file to Singh, a practicing lawyer, on February 28, 2022. 

Singh approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking anticipatory bail, which was denied. He denied the allegations, asserting his false implication in the case. He argued that there was no direct evidence against him, and the accusations were based on conflicting statements from the co-accused. He also maintained that he had no motive to participate in the theft. 

The High Court, however, refused anticipatory bail, citing the seriousness of the charges, particularly the theft of critical judicial documents, which raised significant concerns about the integrity of the judicial system.