Recently, in the matter of Sri Bhaskar Deb Vs State of Tripura, Tripura High Court refused to take action against Police for raiding the house of a lawyer couple in search of an accused being represented by one of them. The bench of Acting Chief Justice T. Amarnath Goud & Justice T Arindam Lodh observed that the search has been conducted following the mandatory provisions of sections 47, 165 and 166(1) of CrPC.

While Section 47 of the Act empowers a Police officer authorized to search a place in order to arrest a person, Section 165 specifically empowers Police to make such searches without seeking a search warrant, provided he records the emergent reasons that necessitated so

"No doubt an Advocate has to protect his client and the client’s interest is paramount to the Advocate. But at the same time, it cannot be brushed away that the petitioners being Advocates are responsible citizens and has the responsibility to cooperate with the investigation agency. They are not above law. Advocates are part and parcel of the justice delivery system," it observed.

The couple submitted that the search was conducted without any warrant. However, the Court noted that police had secret information regarding one of the accused persons to be available in the house of the petitioners. First, the Petitioner protested and Denied the entry of police personnel without a search warrant but on being explained the provisions of Section 47/165 and 166 CrPC, the petitioners had allowed the Police to enter and conduct the search, it further noted.

Further, the Court held that if petitioners were aggrieved by any action of the respondents, they should have approached the learned Magistrate by filing an application under Section 200 CrPC for taking cognizance into the matter However, they did not file any FIR or complaint and straightaway invoked its writ jurisdiction.