Court Dismisses Request for Lawyer Presence During Customs Interrogation, Citing Supreme Court Precedent.

The HC dismissed the interim application requesting the presence of a lawyer during interrogation by Customs Officers, citing the Supreme Court's precedent against such presence. The court directed respondents to file a status report on the investigation, ensuring it proceeds lawfully without coercive means, while monitoring continues until a Show Cause Notice is issued.

---

---

Issues:
1. Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for safeguarding rights and monitoring investigation.
2. Interim application for direction on conducting investigation and presence of lawyer.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the issuance of a writ to protect the right to life, liberty, dignity, and fair investigation. The petitioner requested the court to examine the illegal acts of the CGST officials and monitor the investigation. The petitioner's counsel urged for the court to call for investigation records and monitor the case until the issuance of Show Cause Notice. The respondents accepted notice and sought time to file a status report, which was directed to be submitted before the next hearing date.

Issue 2: An interim application was filed for directions to conduct the investigation without coercive means and to allow the presence of a lawyer during the interrogation. The petitioner alleged illegal detention and coercion during interrogation. The respondents contended that the investigation was being conducted lawfully and cited judgments to support their position. The court referred to relevant judgments, including one by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which held that the presence of a lawyer during questioning by Customs Officers is not allowed. The court emphasized that no method not approved by law should be used during interrogation, and the respondents assured that the investigation would be conducted lawfully. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for the presence of an advocate during questioning based on the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the assurances given by the respondents.

---