Allowed

Bhavik Soni v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2024WP/3492/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, considering a writ petition, allowed the petitioner's request to be accompanied by her advocate during interrogation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and permitted videography of the proceedings at the petitioner's cost.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute permitting petitioner's advocate presence at visible but not audible distance during interrogation and videography at petitioner's cost.

Bhavik Soni Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

 1/4 6 wp 3492 of 2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3492 OF 2023

¶4

Bhavika Soni
An Indian Inhabitant,
Aged – 29 years,
R/at A -1101, Jairaj Ratan,
Shastri nagar, Goreaon (W),
Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 104.….Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Department of Legal Affairs,
Ministry of Law and Justice,
Branch Secretariat, Aaykar Bhavan,
Annex, 2nd Floor, New Marine Lines,
Mumbai – 400 020.

¶7

2Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Through Senior Intelligence Officer,
Mumbai Zonal Unit,
Vithaldas Thackersay Marg,
New Marine Lines,
Mumbai – 400 020.….Respondents

¶8

 …..
Mr.Brijesh Pathak a/w. Mr.Shrey Lodha, Advocate for the
Petitioner.

¶9

Mrs.P.P. Shinde, APP for Respondent – State.

¶10

Mrs.Sangeeta Yadav, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶11

Rajeshri Aher

¶12

Digitally signed by RAJESHRI RAJESHRIPRAKASH PRAKASHAHER AHER Date: 2024.03.13 19:47:06 +0530

¶13

 2/4 6 wp 3492 of 2023.doc

¶14

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶15

DATED : 11^th MARCH 2024.

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Revati Mohite Dere, J.) :

¶17

1Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the

¶18

consent of the parties taken up for final disposal.

¶19

2Learned APP waives notice on behalf of Respondent
No.1 and Ms.Yadav wives notice on behalf of contesting
Respondent–DRI i.e. Respondent No.2 against whom the relief is
sought.

¶20

3By this petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the
Respondent No.2–DRI to permit the Petitioner to attend the
proceedings in question before the DRI in his advocate’s presence
i.e. the advocate would be at a visible distance, but not audible
distance, during the course of his interrogation by the Respondent
No.2. The Petitioner also prays that videography of the
Petitioner’s interrogation be permitted, at Petitioner’s cost.

¶21

Rajeshri Aher

¶22

 3/4 6 wp 3492 of 2023.doc

¶23

4Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the

¶24

decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 1st February
2022 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.6558 of 2021, as well as the
Judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.3909
of 2022. He submits that the prosecution against the Petitioner is
under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, and that the
Petitioner has been issued summons to attend the office of the DRI
in connection with the same. The learned counsel for the
Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is ready to attend the office
of the DRI, any time as and when summoned by the Respondent
No.1–DRI. Statement accepted.

¶25

5Ms.Yadav, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2
opposes the Petition.

¶26

6We have perused the Judgment of this Court passed in
Civil Writ Petition No.6558 of 2021 (Coram : R.D. Dhanuka and
S.M. Modak, JJ.), as well as the Judgment passed by this Court in
Criminal Writ Petition No.3909 of 2023, passed by us (Coram :
Revati Mohite Dere and Manjusha Deshpande, JJ.). Considering

¶27

Rajeshri Aher

¶28

 4/4 6 wp 3492 of 2023.doc

¶29

the prayers made in the Petition, we do not find any impediment
in permitting the Petitioner’s advocate to remain present when the
Petitioner is summoned for interrogation by the Respondent No.2.
The Petitioner’s advocate to remain present at a visible but not
audible distance. We also permit videography of the said
interrogation, however, at the cost of the Petitioner.

¶30

7We make it clear that if the Petitioner’s advocate is

¶31

unable to remain present or if the person videographing is not
present, that will not be a ground for the Petitioner, not to remain
present, before the Respondent No.2–DRI, when summoned.

¶32

8Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. Writ
Petition is accordingly allowed and is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

10All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this
Judgment.

¶34

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE J.

¶35

Rajeshri Aher

Bhavik Soni v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavik Soni v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Maharashtra Vs the Child in Conflict With Law and Anr.

Sharad Ashok Agarwal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anwar Abdul Aziz Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sushil Ranjitsing Jangu Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vicky Pitalia S/O Satish Pitalia Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Ramanna Shetty and Ors. Vs U Shivaji Poojary and Ors.