( 1 ) BY this writ petition certain legal questions were raised by the petitioners who were arrested in connection with the murder of Baba Gurbachan Singh, the Nirankari chief. The petitioners have since then been released under the proviso to S. 167 Cr. P. C. and the writ petition only survives for consideration of two legal questions :-

(1) Whether the accused at the time of interrogation are entitled to the presence of a lawyer within the meaning of the Supreme court decision reported in Smt. Nandini Satpathy v. P. L. Dani and another A. I. R. 1978 S. C. 1025?

(2) Whether where an accused person has been remanded to judicial custody, he could still be interrogated or not?i have heard Gurcharan Singh Bawa at length on both the questions.

( 2 ) ON the first question, I had an occasion to examine the matter in Ram Lakwani v. Sate, Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 211 of 1980, decided on April 24, 1980, and I see no reason to depart from the view taken therein then that the Supreme Court did not lay down any mandate but only suggested strongly that it would be prudent for the police to allow a lawyer where the accused wants to have one at the time of interrogation, if