SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER versus JUGAL KISHORE SAMRA

A person released on anticipatory bail and summoned for interrogation under NDPS Act is not entitled as of right to have his lawyer present during interrogation. However, considering respondent's medical condition and facts, interrogation should be within sight (but not hearing) of his advocate or authorized person, without opportunity for consultation during interrogation.

Parties: Appellant: Senior Intelligence Officer; Respondent: Jugal Kishore Samra
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 05 July 2011
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Affirming Sessions Judge Order
Outcome: Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics: Anticipatory Bail, Interrogation, Right to Counsel, NDPS Act

Criminal Law Anticipatory Bail Interrogation Right to Counsel NDPS Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Senior Intelligence Officer

Appellant

Jugal Kishore Samra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Affirming Sessions Judge Order

Legal Issues

1 Whether a person granted anticipatory bail is entitled to have his lawyer present during interrogation by investigative authorities
2 Whether prior precedents and constitutional safeguards entitle the respondent to presence of an advocate during interrogation

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

Orders of High Court and Metropolitan Sessions Judge set aside
Interrogation of respondent to be held within sight (but not hearing) of his advocate or authorized person, without opportunity for consultation