2020 (12) TMI 1223 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking dispensing with the physical presence and production of petitioner - seeking direction to question/interrogate the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid FIR through online mode/vide conferencing - HELD THAT - Interrogation is an effective tool available with an Investigator. It is an indefeasible right of the police to interrogate an accused to unearth the truth especially when direct evidence is not available or the modus operandi of the commission of offence is such that there are certain hidden facts which are required to be brought to surface. No doubt, the Courts in the present times have been relying upon video conferencing for the conduct of proceedings of the Court but interrogation of an accused, though possible through video conference, will loose much of its effectiveness when the accused is sitting far far away from the investigator/interrogator. During the course of interrogation, an Investigator would put several questions one after another depending upon the answers given by the accused while watching his demeanour. Interrogation also involves reading the psyche of the accused so as to elicit truth which can effectively be possible by observing his immediate response and conduct to the queries put to him. This Court is of the firm opinion that the police cannot be deprived of its right to interrogate an accused and that video conferencing may not be as effective as physical interrogation especially when the case happens to be such where the accused has played a role in the back stage. However, at the same time keeping in view the apprehension of the petitioner, who is involved in large number of cases, it certainly needs to be secured that no harm is caused to the accused and that he is safely brought from the jail where he is presently confined in Rajasthan to Chandigarh or to Haryana where he is involved in other cases. The petitioner shall first be brought from Rajasthan to Chandigarh by the Chandigarh police after obtaining requisite production warrants as per provisions of law and shall be produced before the Illaqa Magistrate concerned for the purpose of seeking remand - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dispensing with the physical presence and production of the petitioner.
2. Interrogation of the petitioner through online mode/video conferencing.
3. Security measures for the petitioner during transit.
4. Handcuffing the petitioner during transit.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Dispensing with the physical presence and production of the petitioner:
The petitioner sought relief to dispense with his physical presence and production in connection with FIRs registered in different jurisdictions. The court acknowledged the petitioner's concerns but emphasized the importance of physical interrogation for effective investigation. The court directed that the petitioner be physically brought to the respective jurisdictions for interrogation, ensuring all necessary security measures are in place.

2. Interrogation of the petitioner through online mode/video conferencing:
The petitioner requested interrogation through video conferencing, citing safety concerns and the advancement of technology. The court, however, highlighted the limitations of video conferencing for interrogation purposes, stating that physical interrogation allows investigators to observe the accused's demeanor and immediate responses, which are crucial for assessing the veracity of the answers and eliciting the truth. Therefore, the court denied the request for video conferencing interrogation.

3. Security measures for the petitioner during transit:
The court meticulously detailed the security measures to be adopted during the petitioner's transit from Rajasthan to Chandigarh and Haryana. The directives included:
- Supervision by senior police officials.
- Deployment of armed trained commandos with sophisticated arms and ammunition.
- Use of bullet-proof or armored vehicles.
- Coordination between Rajasthan, Chandigarh, and Haryana police for safe transit.
- Thorough servicing and checking of vehicles to prevent breakdowns.

4. Handcuffing the petitioner during transit:
The petitioner expressed a preference to be handcuffed during transit to minimize the risk of a false encounter. The court agreed, directing that the petitioner be duly handcuffed and shackled during transit, which would address both the police's concerns about escape and the petitioner's safety apprehensions.

Conclusion:
The court balanced the petitioner's safety concerns with the investigative needs of the police. It mandated physical interrogation while ensuring stringent security measures during transit. The court's directives aimed to safeguard the petitioner's rights while facilitating effective investigation. The petitions were disposed of with specific instructions to the police authorities to ensure compliance and accountability.