NEW DELHI: Delhi High Court on Saturday stayed a trial court order allowing the presence of a lawyer during the interrogation of minister Satyendar Jain, who was arrested recently by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case.
Justice Yogesh Khanna said that when there is credible material to indicate the real and live apprehension of a possible threat or coercion being employed at the time of recording of statement, such a direction may be passed, but since there is no apprehension raised in the present matter, the direction ought not to have been given as a matter of right.
The high court further stated that since there is neither any FIR nor a complaint against the AAP leader, he cannot as a matter of right claim to have the presence of his lawyers during the course of recording of his statement. Even otherwise, recording of the statement is videographed and audiographed, which would dispel the apprehension of any coercion and threat, the court added in its order released on Saturday.
The stay order was passed on a plea by the ED challenging the trial court’s May 31 order allowing the presence of a lawyer, at a distance, during Jain’s interrogation in its custody from May 31 till June 9.
“If a litigant in a particular case is able to produce credible material to indicate the real and live apprehension of a possible threat, coercion being employed, while recording his statement, this court can always permit at visible, but not an audible range during the course of recording of the statement, but since there is no apprehension raised in the present matter, hence, as a matter of right, such direction ought not to have been given in the recording of statement. Thus, the impugned direction in para no. 26 of order dated 31.05.2022 stands stayed,” said the high court, which listed the matter for further hearing on August 24.
Jain was arrested on May 30 under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the trial court on May 31 remanded him to the ED’s custody till June 9.
While remanding Jain to the ED’s custody, the trial court had allowed his plea that during the time of inquiry/investigation of the accused, one advocate of the accused shall be allowed to remain present at a safe distance from where he can see the accused but not hear him. The ED had assailed the order before the high court on the ground that it was contrary to various decisions of the Supreme Court and the law.
Jain’s lawyers had opposed the agency’s plea and said it was an “extraordinary case” as the prosecution had filed the petition despite the law being against them. It was argued that the Supreme Court has consistently allowed a system where the lawyer is available at a distance but prosecution was terming them mere orders.
