2019 (11) TMI 775 - HC - Customs

Interrogation of petitioner - Pre-arrest bail - service of SCN - recording of statements - power to arrest the petitioner - HELD THAT - The petitioners would be interrogated in presence of an advocate at a visible, but not audible distance in relation to the interrogation by the Officers of DRI in accordance with the direction given in the case of VIJAY SAJNANI ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ANR. 2012 (4) TMI 706 - SUPREME COURT . Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Relief sought for writ of prohibition under Customs Act, 1962
- Permission for advocate presence during interrogation
- Pre-arrest bail protection

Analysis:

1. Writ of Prohibition under Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioners sought relief through a writ of prohibition to prevent officers from exercising arrest powers under the Customs Act, 1962 without following mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court noted that the relief claimed in this regard was related to pre-arrest bail. The Senior Counsel for the petitioners decided not to press this relief, which was accepted by the court.

2. Advocate Presence During Interrogation:
The petitioners requested permission for an advocate to be present at a visible but not audible distance during their interrogation by Officers of DRI. This request was based on directions from the Supreme Court in previous cases. The DRI opposed this relief, citing a decision by the Telangana High Court and an order of the Apex Court. However, the petitioners' counsel relied on a previous Apex Court decision and argued for limited protection during interrogation. The High Court referred to various judgments and ultimately granted the relief, directing that the petitioners be interrogated in the presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance.

3. Pre-Arrest Bail Protection:
The issue of pre-arrest bail protection was discussed in light of judgments from the Telangana High Court and the Apex Court. The High Court considered the decisions related to pre-arrest protection and noted that the Apex Court had dismissed an appeal against the Telangana High Court judgment. The court highlighted the importance of keeping this dismissal in mind when considering requests for pre-arrest bail. However, the judgments reviewed did not directly address the specific issue presented in this case.

4. Final Decision:
After analyzing various judgments and arguments, the High Court granted the relief requested for advocate presence during interrogation. The court directed that the petitioners be interrogated in the presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance, in accordance with previous Supreme Court directions. Additionally, the proceedings were ordered to be videographed as per the Supreme Court's instructions in a related case.

By carefully considering the legal precedents and arguments presented, the High Court made a detailed analysis and issued a comprehensive order addressing the specific reliefs sought by the petitioners in relation to the Customs Act, 1962 and the presence of an advocate during interrogation.