The Karkardooma Court has directed the Station House Officer (SHO) concerned to personally supervise the investigation into the alleged highway snatching of an advocate’s laptop bag and ordered the Investigating Officer (IO) to file a detailed status report on the progress of the probe.
The order came in proceedings initiated by practising advocate Karan Mishra, who has sought judicial monitoring of the investigation into an alleged snatching incident on the NH-24 Akshardham stretch. The complainant has alleged that despite the registration of an FIR and repeated representations, the police failed to carry out a meaningful investigation.
On July 23, Judicial Magistrate First Class Amit Rana heard submissions on the complainant’s pending application and directed the IO to place a comprehensive status report regarding the investigation on record. The Court further observed that, keeping in mind that the applicant is an advocate, the status report should be submitted through the SHO concerned, who has also been directed to personally supervise the investigation. The matter has been listed next on August 1, 2026, at 12:30 PM for filing of the status report.
The complaint has been filed under Sections 173(4), 175(3), 210 and 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to an FIR registered at Pandav Nagar Police Station under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
According to the complaint, on June 27, 2026, two unidentified persons allegedly snatched his laptop bag while he was riding his two-wheeler on the NH-24 Akshardham stretch. The bag allegedly contained an Apple MacBook Air M2, his advocate’s stamp, Bar Council identity card, Aadhaar and PAN cards, confidential legal files and other professional materials collectively valued at around ₹2 lakh.
The complainant has further alleged that shortly after the incident, he began receiving phishing emails and messages allegedly intended to obtain the password to the stolen laptop. Despite sharing details of the phishing links, email addresses and mobile numbers with the investigating agency, he claims that no effective steps have been taken to trace the accused or recover the stolen property. Complainant has also contended that the laptop contains privileged advocate-client communications and confidential case records, raising concerns over the possible compromise of sensitive legal information.
In his application, the advocate has sought judicial directions for preservation of CCTV footage and digital evidence, tracing of the phishing domain, IP addresses and email accounts allegedly used after the theft, and a court-monitored investigation.
