Arvindkumar Jain Dhakad And Ors. vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition in part, specifically concerning the relief sought in prayer clause (b). The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to have their advocate present at a visible but not audible distance during their interrogation by DRI officers in F.No. DRI/MZU/E/INT-65/2019. This decision was based on the binding orders of the Supreme Court, particularly in Vijay Sajnani Vs. Union of India and the principles reiterated in Birendra Pandey Vs. Union of India. The Court reasoned that the Supreme Court has consistently allowed such limited presence of counsel to ensure that no coercive methods are used during interrogation, distinguishing this from situations where a lawyer actively participates. Furthermore, the Court directed that the interrogation proceedings be video-graphed, in line with the assurance given by the department in Rajinder Arora & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. The Court noted that while the Supreme Court had dismissed appeals against the Telangana High Court's contrary view, those cases pertained to pre-arrest bail, which was not pressed by the petitioners in this instance. The specific issue of advocate's presence during interrogation was not directly addressed in the Supreme Court orders cited by the respondents.

Facts

The petitioners, Arvindkumar Jain Dhakad and others, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging actions by officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The petition sought to prohibit the DRI officers from exercising powers of arrest and summoning under Sections 104 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, without following the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also sought permission for an advocate to be present during interrogation at a visible but not audible distance, and for the proceedings to be video-graphed, citing Supreme Court judgments. The petitioners later withdrew the relief sought in prayer clauses (a) and (c) concerning pre-arrest bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to have their advocate present at a visible but not audible distance during interrogation by DRI officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and for the proceedings to be video-graphed? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of Supreme Court precedents and statutory provisions). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that they are seeking limited protection, similar to that granted by the Supreme Court in Birendra Pandey Vs. Union of India, allowing an advocate's presence at a visible but not audible distance during interrogation to prevent coercive methods. They relied on Vijay Sajnani Vs. Union of India and Rajinder Arora Vs. Union of India for these reliefs. Respondent's arguments: The DRI opposed the relief, citing the Telangana High Court's decision in Writ Petition No. 4764 of 2019, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No. 4322-4324 of 2019 (Union of India Vs. Sapna Jain & Ors). The DRI argued that the Supreme Court's refusal to interfere with the Telangana High Court's decision, which dismissed a similar petition, indicated a contrary view on such protections.