Bombay High Court
Afzal Jaffer Khan vs Union Of India And Ors on 5 October, 2018
Author: Bharati H. Dangre
Bench: Ranjit More, Bharati H. Dangre
512 wp 4413.18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4413 of 2018
Afzal Jaffer Khan .....Petitioner
versus
The Union of India and ors. ......Respondents
Dr. Sujay Kantawala along with Mr.Kartik Vig, Ms. Aishwarya Kantawala,
Mr. Mangesh Avhale I/b. Ms. Sabeena Mahadik, advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. H. S. Venegaonkar, advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. S. R. Shinde, APP for the State.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE &
SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
DATE : 5th OCTOBER, 2018.
P. C. :
1 Mentioned for production. Taken up on production board in
view of urgency.
2 Dr. Kantawala, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the
outset, submitted that the issue involved in this petition is sub judice before the Apex Court. He also submitted that the above issue is also sub judice in several criminal writ petitions pending before this Court.
The submission of Dr.Kantawala is not disputed by Mr. Venegaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
3 In the light of the above, we defer the hearing of this petition till 10th October, 2018.
Digitally signed by Shubhada Shubhada S Kadam 1/2 Shubhada Shankar Shankar Kadam Kadam Date:
2018.10.06 15:53:40 +0530 512 wp 4413.18.doc
4 Dr. Kantawala submitted that the petitioner shall be attending the Office of the respondent No.4 from Monday i.e. 8 th October, 2018.
The statement is accepted.
5 By way of interim relief, we pass the following order :
i) Till next date, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in respect of File No.DRI/NRU/CI-
26/INT-O/ENQ-45/2018/1142.
ii) We permit the advocate of the petitioner to accompany him at visible but not audible distance during his interrogation by the officers of DRI in accordance with the general direction given by the Honb'le Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Sajnani versus Union of India in Crl.M.P.No.10117 of 2012 in WP(Crl.) 29 of 2012.
iii) In view of the statement which is recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its order dated 7 th December, 2010 in Rajendra Arora and ors. versus Union of India and ors. in Writ Petition (Civil) No(s) 389 of 2010, we further direct that the Department shall videograph recording of the statement and examination of the petitioner as well as goods. The same shall be at the cost of the petitioner. Needless to state that the accused would not be entitled to copy thereof, unless so ordered by this Court.
[SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] Shubhada S Kadam 2/2