MOHD. IRFAN IQBAL MEMON Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Taraq Saiyed with learned advocate Mr. S.D. Moghariya appearing for the applicant, who had at the outset states that the present applicant would not press this application and intents to surrender before the D.R.I authorities in case if the Court excise its jurisdiction and protect the present applicant against any apprehended physical assault by allowing the advocate of the applicant to remain present during recording of statement in a separate room from where the recording of statement of the present applicant can be seen. It is clearly stated by learned advocate Mr. Saiyed upon instruction that the applicant has no objection against his arrest in case if the authority upon recording of statement comes to the conclusion that the arrest of the present applicant is necessary. It is only the fear of physical assault due to which this application was preferred.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Siddharth Dave vehemently opposed the application as far as the request for presence of advocate of the applicant during the course of investigation even in the separate room whereby he cannot interrupt the investigation for recording of statement.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Dave submitted that as and when a fresh summons would be issued to the present applicant, the applicant is required to make an application for remaining present before the authority during the course of recording of statement and therefore, this Court may not entertain his request even if, the applicant has shown willingness to surrender.