Petitioner Must Attend In-Person Interrogation for Effective Investigation

The court mandated physical presence of the petitioner for interrogation in various jurisdictions, emphasizing the importance of in-person questioning for effective investigation. Video conferencing for interrogation was denied due to limitations in assessing demeanor and responses. Detailed security measures during transit were outlined, including supervision by senior police officials, armed commandos, and armored vehicles. The petitioner was directed to be handcuffed for safety during transit, balancing concerns of escape and safety. The court aimed to safeguard the petitioner's rights while facilitating thorough investigation, with specific instructions for police compliance and accountability.

---

---

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.

---