Limited right to counsel during interrogation under CrPC Section 41D; broader continuous presence was not warranted.
Section 41D of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers only a limited right on an arrested person to meet counsel during interrogation, and does not create an entitlement to the continuous presence of an advocate throughout questioning; on the stated facts, the broader order allowing such presence was held unsustainable. The court also addressed medical examination in custody, recognising the need for an arrested person to be examined and for reliable medical material to be available for remand consideration. The direction to take the accused to a specific hospital was modified, with specialist examination arrangements substituted so the Special Court could assess remand on an independent medical report.
Issues: (i) whether the order permitting the accused to have an advocate present during interrogation under Section 41D of the Code of Criminal Procedure was legally sustainable; (ii) whether the order directing the accused to be taken to a particular hospital for medical examination and treatment was justified.
Issue (i): whether the order permitting the accused to have an advocate present during interrogation under Section 41D of the Code of Criminal Procedure was legally sustainable.
Analysis: Section 41D confers only a limited right on an arrested person to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation and does not create an unfettered entitlement to the continuous presence of counsel throughout interrogation. The record also showed that the assertion that counsel had been excluded from the raid was incorrect. On that basis, the order granting a broader right of presence during interrogation was found to be legally unsustainable.
Conclusion: The order permitting the advocate to remain present during interrogation was set aside, in favour of the Appellant.
Issue (ii): whether the order directing the accused to be taken to a particular hospital for medical examination and treatment was justified.
Analysis: The Court accepted that an arrested person must be medically examined and that the investigating agency has corresponding obligations during police custody. At the same time, the direction to send the accused to a specific hospital was viewed against the background of the need to ensure a reliable medical report for the Special Court's consideration on remand. The Court therefore modified the course adopted by the Magistrate and substituted a different medical examination arrangement through specialist doctors, while also fixing the matter for prompt consideration by the Special Judge.
Conclusion: The medical-treatment direction was modified and restructured, with the matter ultimately decided partly in favour of the Appellant.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only in part: the direction granting counsel's presence during interrogation was annulled, while the medical-examination direction was modified so that the Special Court could decide remand on the basis of a specialist medical report.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 41D of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives a limited right of access to counsel during interrogation, but not a continuous right to the advocate's presence as of course, and remand-related medical directions must be framed to secure an independent and reliable assessment for the court.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
