Gujarat High Court
Raujesh Dhakkad @ Rajesh Jain S/O ... vs State Of Gujarat on 10 February, 2020
Author: S.H.Vora
Bench: S.H.Vora
R/CR.MA/263/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 263 of 2020
==========================================================
RAUJESH DHAKKAD @ RAJESH JAIN S/O BHERULAL JAIN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHETAN K PANDYA(1973) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR DEVANG VYAS(2794) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA
Date : 10/02/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. Respondent nos.2 and 3 submits affidavit in reply through learned advocate Mr. Siddhardh Dave, which is ordered to be taken on record.
2. It is stated at bar by learned advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 that statement of applicant no.1 is already recorded twice. So far as statement of applicant no.2 - Mr. Akhil Dhakkad is concerned, he need not be extended protection in light of decision in the case of Poolpandi and Ors. v/s. Superintendent, Central Excise and Ors. reported in (1992) 3 SCC 259.
3. Learned advocate Mr. C.K.Pandya for the applicant no.2 states at bar that DRI has issued summons for appearance on various occasion and now the applicant no.2 is summoned to appear on 12.02.2020 as per affidavit annexed at page No.58. It is submitted that applicant no.2 is apprehensive that coercive attempts may be made to extort confessions from the applicant no.2 and therefore, prayer is made to the effect that Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 11 00:10:19 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/263/2020 ORDER interrogation of the applicant no.2 be conducted not in the immediate presence of his advocate, but advocate of applicant no.2 should be allowed to be present during interrogation within visible, but beyond audible / hearing distance.
4. Considering various case law on the subject, more particularly afore-said prayer, in light of direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Birendra Kumar Pandey and Anr. v/s. Union of India and Anr. in Writ Petition (Cri.) No.28 of 2012, wherein, decision rendered in the case of Poolpandi (supra) is considered, the respondent authority is directed to allow advocate of applicant no.2 to be present during the interrogation of applicant no.2 but he should be made to sit at a distance beyond hearing range, but within visible range and further concerned advocate of applicant no.2 must be prepared to be present whenever applicant no.2 is called upon for interrogation pursuant to the summons dated 03.02.2020 for appearance on 12.02.2020 and any future date that may be fixed by the respondent authority. Stand over to 31.03.2020.
Direct service is permitted, today.
(S.H.VORA, J) SATISH Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 11 00:10:19 IST 2020