Happy Dhakad vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition to the limited extent prayed for in prayer clause (b). The Court found that while the Supreme Court's orders in cases like Union of India v. Sapna Jain & ors. and the Telangana High Court's judgment dealt with pre-arrest protection and did not directly address the issue of lawyer's presence during interrogation, the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Vijay Sajnani & Anr. v. Union of India provided a clear precedent. In Vijay Sajnani, the Supreme Court had directed that in similar cases, an advocate could be present within visible distance but beyond hearing range during interrogation under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court also noted the assurance in Rajinder Arora v. Union of India & Ors. that proceedings would be video-graphed. Therefore, bound by the Apex Court's orders, the Court directed that the petitioner be interrogated in the presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance, and that the proceedings be video-graphed.

Facts

The petitioner, Happy Dhakad, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking directions similar to those issued by the Supreme Court in Vijay Sajnani & Anr. v. Union of India. Specifically, the petitioner requested permission to have an advocate present at a visible but not audible distance during interrogation by officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The petitioner initially sought relief under prayer clause (a) but withdrew it. The DRI opposed the relief sought in prayer clause (b), relying on a Telangana High Court judgment upheld by the Supreme Court, which refused similar relief. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Birendra Pandey v. Union of India.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have an advocate present at a visible but not audible distance during interrogation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers, in light of Supreme Court precedents. The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court in Birendra Pandey v. Union of India had granted such limited protection, allowing an advocate to be present within visible distance but beyond hearing range to ensure no coercive methods were used. The petitioner contended that this relief was sought to prevent extortion of confessions. The revenue (Union of India/DRI) opposed this, citing the Supreme Court's refusal to interfere with the Telangana High Court's decision in a similar matter, which had declined to grant protection from arrest and upheld the scheme of the CGST Act, 2017, and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revenue also relied on the Supreme Court's order in Union of India v. Sapna Jain & ors., which cautioned High Courts to consider the Telangana High Court's view in future pre-arrest bail matters.