HC stays order allowing Satyendar Jain to have counsel during interrogation

The High court on Friday had reserved the order on the plea moved by the Enforcement Directorate EDThe agency had moved Delhi High Court challenging the order of a special court allowing Satyendar Jain to have counsel during interrogation Jain is in the custody of ED till June 9Justice Yogesh Khanna while passing the order said Since there is neither any FIR nor a complaint against the respondent he cannot as a matter of right claim to have the presence of his lawyer during the course of recording of his statement as per the judgement in the case of Ramesh Chander Metra and Anant BrahmachariEven otherwise admittedly his entire recording of statement is being videographed and autographed which certainly would dispel the apprehension of any coercion threat to the respondent Justice Khanna observedThus the impugned direction stands stayed The matter is listed on August 24Also Read Country should be proud of Satyendar Jain he should be awarded Padma Vibhushan Arvind KejriwalAdditional Solicitor General ASG S V Raju at the outset of the hearing on Friday had argued the said order of the special judge is without reasoning He also said that Satyender Jain is not an accused therefore he is not entitled to this reliefASG Raju also had submitted that there are no allegations of threatening or beating up the accused Therefore the presence of counsel during interrogation is not required It is permitted by the courts in many cases It is only to avoid any dispute during the inquiryHe also had submitted that ED Videography is for every inquiry or interrogation In this case Jain himself was not ready for videography during the inquiryOn the other hand Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi objected to the submission made by the ASG RajuSinghvi argued that the presence of counsel during the inquiry was always permitted by the court He referred to the judgement given by the Supreme CourtThe presence of counsel is always permitted at a visible distance beyond the audible distance during the interrogation Singhvi arguedHe also argued that the presence is allowed to guide the person in arrest to guide which question is to answer It is important in view of the admissibility of statements taken under section 50 Prevention of Money Laundering Act PMLASinghvi objected to the submission that Jain is not an accused He said he is accused in the case registered in August 2017 by the Central Bureau of investigation In this case also he was arrested and custody was taken by the agency In these circumstances his client is entitled to have counsel during interrogationSpecial Judge Geetanjali Goel on May 31 had granted the custody of Jain to ED till June 9 in a moneylaundering caseThe special judge at the request of counsel for Satyendar Jain had allowed being present during interrogation at distance from Where he can see but can not hear the questioningThe ED had sought custody of Jain in the moneylaundering matter to unearth the trail of money and its source It was alleged that the accused was involved in moneylaundering through accommodation entries in the companiesThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever