1 APHC010302832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 15096/2025 Between: Dodda Ramakrishna ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREE DEEPTHI G Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB 2. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to examine the petitioner who has been involved in Cr.No.01/RCO-CIU- ACB/2025 of Central Investigation Unit, A.P., Vijayawada, NTR District, in the presence of an Advocate of his choice and further record the same through audio-video electronic means. 2 2. Sri K. Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel representing Ms. G. Sree Deepthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner apprehends that he would be ill-treated and subjected to third degree methods while he is being interrogated by the investigating officer. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home. 4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Senior Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence Vs Jugal Kishore Samra1 at paragraph No.28 observed as under: “Taking a cue, therefore, from the direction made in DK Basu and having regard to the special facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct that the interrogation of the respondent may be held within the sight of his advocate or any other person duly authorized by him. The advocate or the person authorized by the respondent may watch the proceedings from a distance or from beyond a glass partition but he will not be within the hearing distance and it will not be open to the respondent to have consultations with him in course of the interrogation.” 5. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Petition No.7557 of 2023 at paragraph No.12 observed as under: “The respondent-police are directed to conduct investigation between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. with one hour interval. The petitioner is entitled to be accompanied by an Advocate of his choice, subject to condition that the said Advocate shall be at a distance of minimum 10 feet away from the place of investigation. However, it is made clear that the entire investigation shall go on within the eye sight of the Advocate, but he shall not interfere with the investigation.” 1 (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 362 3 6. In any interrogation relating to a crime, the Investigating Officer is not expected to subject the suspect or accused to ill-treatment or third- degree methods. Human rights have to be honored, inasmuch as the suspect has not been found guilty by the competent Court; the accused is presumed to be innocent until the guilt is proved. 7. The prayer of the petitioner is reasonable and convincing. Therefore, the Investigating Officer in Cr. No. 01/RCO-CIU-ACB/2025 of the Central Investigation Unit, A.P., Vijayawada, NTR District, is directed to interrogate the petitioner, if necessary, in the presence of an Advocate of the petitioner's choice. The Investigating Officer shall not resort to inhumane treatment or third-degree methods. The Advocate shall be kept at a distance of 10 feet away from the place of interrogation, and the Advocate of the petitioner's choice shall not interfere in the interrogation process. However, it is made clear that the interrogation shall be conducted within the eyesight of the Advocate. 8. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any shall stands closed. __________________________________ DR. Y.LAKSHMANA RAO,J Date: 24.06.2025 MH 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y.LAKSHMANA RAO 63 W.P.No.15096 of 2025 Date: 24.06.2025 MH