Interrogation safeguards allow counsel nearby but out of hearing range, with videography permitted to curb coercive questioning.

Interrogation safeguards were recognised for a summoned person facing DRI questioning, with counsel permitted at a visible but not audible distance so as to prevent coercive questioning without allowing active participation. The Court treated this limited presence as an appropriate protective measure where earlier directions supported such relief, and it also accepted videography of the proceedings as consistent with that safeguard. The writ petition therefore succeeded only to that limited extent, securing both protected legal presence and video recording during interrogation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to have an advocate present at a visible but not audible distance during interrogation by the DRI officers, and whether the interrogation proceedings should be videographed.

Analysis: The relief sought was confined to limited protection during interrogation, namely the presence of counsel within sight but outside hearing range, so that coercive methods could be kept in check without permitting active participation in the interrogation. The Court relied on earlier binding directions recognising that, in appropriate cases, such a safeguard can be granted. It also noted the separate assurance regarding videography in similar proceedings and considered that direction consistent with the protection sought.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to interrogation in the presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance, and the proceedings were also to be videographed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the limited extent of granting protective presence of counsel during interrogation and videography of the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In interrogation proceedings of a summoned , the Court may direct the presence of counsel at a visible but not audible distance, and may also require videography, where such limited safeguards are necessary to prevent coercive interrogation without allowing the advocate an active role.

---