Custodial questioning in customs matters may permit counsel within sight but outside hearing distance where facts make the safeguard reasonable.

During customs questioning, the petitioner sought assistance of counsel within visible range but beyond audible range. Relying on the limited safeguard recognised by the Supreme Court and the facts that the petitioner had remained in custody for a substantial period, had cooperated earlier, and was facing pending departmental investigation, the Delhi High Court found the request reasonable. The prayer was allowed, and the petitioner was permitted an advocate of choice within sight but outside hearing distance during questioning, without prejudice to the merits of the matter.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the circumstances of customs interrogation, the petitioner was entitled to have the assistance of counsel within visible range but beyond audible range while being questioned.

Analysis: The petitioner had remained in custody for a substantial period without being questioned by the Customs Department, had already cooperated in earlier proceedings, and relied on the limited safeguard recognised by the Supreme Court in a prior order permitting counsel to remain within sight but outside hearing distance. The Court also noted the pending departmental investigation despite issuance of a show cause notice and found the request reasonable in the facts presented. The order was expressly confined to the application and was not intended to prejudice the merits of either .

Conclusion: The prayer was allowed and the petitioner was permitted the presence of an advocate of his choice within range of sight but outside audible range during questioning by the Customs Department.

---