STATE OF HARYANA Vs. L D KATARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. We heard Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned counsel for the State of Haryana, which challenges the order granted by the High Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The respondent who was the erstwhile Chairman, of the Haryana Public service Commission, a retired IAS Officer, is required for custodial interrogation according to the learned counsel. Mr. Sanyal, learned senior counsel while opposing the said prayer invited bur attention to certain observations passed by this Court in JT 1997 (3) SC 33'. According to Mr. Sanyal, these observations are, exonerative in nature. But according to Mr. Mahabir Singh they are not so. Be that as it may. We are taking of via media, considering the stand adopted by the respondent at the beginning of the case and the need of the investigating Agency to interrogate him. Respondent is directed to surrender before the vigilance Officer, Police Station, Rohtak, at 8 a. m. on 7.2.2001 and on such surrender he shall be arrested by, the. Investigating Officer and interrogation; shall be held till 9 p. m. , if necessary and then release him on bail on his executing; bail bond (with or without sureties) to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. If further Interrogation is found necessary, the investigating Officer shall inform him of the time and' venue at which respondent shall be present for continuing such interrogation and respondent is bound to attend at such place and time.

(2.) Mr. Sanyal, learned' Senior Counsel made a request that the counsel of respondent may be allowed to be present during interrogation. It is disallowed. The Investigation officer shall ensure that no counsel is present anywhere in the vicinity of the interrogation place. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.