LexSENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER versus JUGAL KISHORE SAMRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2011] 7 S.C.R. 889 SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER v. JUGAL KISHORE SAMRA (Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2011) .•Jtf: JULY 05, 2011 ,. [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA,' JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 A B - Registration of case against accused for offences punishable under the NDPS Act - lssuan.ce of summons to C one of the accused and his brother (respondent) - Case of respondent that on going to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Office, they were tortured by the officials; that he suffered a heart attack and was later threatened with third degree methods - Application for anticipatory bail by D respondent - Allowed by the Sessions Judge - Thereafter, respondent seeking modification of the order of anticipatory bail to the extent that the interrogation and examination of the respondent be conducted in the presence of his advocate and a cardiologist - Sessions Judge ·directing that the E interrogation of the respondent to take place only in presence of his lawyer - Said order upheld by the High Court - On appeal, held: Respondent is not entitled as of right to the presence of his lawyer at the time of his interrogation in connection with the case - However, having regard to the facts F and circumstances of the case, the interrogation of the respondent may be held within the sight of his advocate or any other person duly authorized by him who may watch the proceedings from a distance or from beyond a glass partition but will not be within the hearing distance and it will not be G open to the respondent to have consultations with him in course of the interrogation - Thus, order passed by the Sessions Judge and upheld by the High Court is substituted by the said directions. 889 H 890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 7 S.C.R. A A case was registered against A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Officers recorded the statement of A1 and A2. Thereafter, they summoned respondent and B his brother A3. It was the respondent's case that on going to ORI offices, they were tortured and the respondent suffered a heart attack. On discharge from the hospital the respondent went directly to ORI office to enquire about A 3 and he was threatened with third degree c methods and again had to be hospitalized. The respondent filed an application for anticipatory bail and the same was allowed. Thereafter, the respondent filed another application under Section 438(2) Cr .P. C. for modification of the order of anticipatory bail to the extent 0 that the interrogation and examination of the respondent be conducted in the presence of his advocate and a cardiologist. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge partly allowed the application. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an application praying for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent. The High Court dismissed the E same. The appellant then filed another application and the High Court cancelled the bail granted to A 3. A3 then filed a special leave petition and this Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the bail granted to A3. Meanwhile, the appellant filed a revision before the High F Court challenging the order passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge directing for the respondent's interrogation to take place only in presence of his lawyer. The High Court dismissed the revision. Therefore, the G H appellant filed the instant Special Leave Petition. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court , HELD: 1.1. The respondent applied for and got anticipatory bail on the premise that he was not an accused in the case. There was no change in his position SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER v. JUGAL 891 KISHORE SAMRA or status since the grant of bail till he was summoned to A appear before th-e Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Officers. On the facts of the case, therefore, it is futile to contend that the respondent is entitled, as of right, to the presence of his lawyer at the time of his interrogation in connection with the case. Moreover, the respondent's B plea for the presence of his lawyer at the time of his interrogation clearly appears to be in teeth of the decision in *Poo/pandi. Nonetheless, the submission that the respondent's right was recognized by this Court and preserved in **Nandini Satpathy.and the decision in c *Poo/pandi has no application to the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.