IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compliance with the statutory requirements of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, particularly regarding arrest and production before a judge, is crucial in determining the legality of an arrest and the entitlement to bail.

JUDGMENT

1. By this Interim Application the applicant prays for his release on interim bail in connection with ECIR/MBZO-II/10/2021 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement.

2. The applicant has been arraigned as an accused in ECIR/MBZO-II/10/2021. By filing Writ Petition No.1225 of 2023, the Petitioner has sought quashment of the said proceedings with a further declaration that the arrest of the applicant by the Directorate of Enforcement on 22/03/2023 was illegal. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid writ petition was heard earlier and the judgment was reserved in the said matter. As the judgment could not be pronounced on 26/06/2023 the present applicant was directed to be released on interim bail subject to conditions mentioned in the order. This order was the subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No.16226 of 2023. By the judgment dated 09/02/2024, the Supreme Court set aside the order dated 26/6/2023 releasing the applicant on interim bail on the ground that when the said order was passed, the Division Bench was not assigned with the subject roster and hence it could not have passed that order. The applicant was granted time of two weeks to surrender and liberty was then reserved in favour of the applicant to move an application for interim relief. In accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court, the applicant surrendered before the learned Special Judge on 23/2/2024 and thereafter as per the liberty granted, the applicant has filed this Interim Application with a prayer to release him on interim bail.

3. Mr. S. S. Bedekar the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had been kept under illegal detention for a period exceeding 24 hours which resulted in his arrest being illegal. Though the applicant was arrested on 22/03/2023 he was produced before the learned Special Judge only on 24/03/2023 which was beyond the period of 24 hours. The learned Counsel referred to the remand application as well as the order passed thereon and submitted that since the applicant was in the confines of the Enforcement Directorate since 22/03/2023 pursuant to the summons received at 11.45 p.m., he ought to have been produced before the learned Special Judge within a period of 24 hours which came to an end on 23/03/2023. Since the arrest of the applicant itself was illegal, he was entitled to be released on interim bail. The learned Counsel for the applicant referred to various provisions of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, the Act of 2002) and especially Section 19 thereof to contend that various safeguards referred to therein had not been complied with. Since an order of protection was granted to the main accused, the applicant was entitled to benefit thereof. Reference was made to the registration of FIR No.0213 on 01/04/2023 at Worli Police Station under Sections 120-B, 379, 406, 411, 414 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code to contend that such registration of the FIR was by way of an afterthought. Without challenging the remand order, the writ petition was filed immediately on 30/03/2023. The learned Counsel referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Mandanlal Choudhary and Others vs Union of India and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 to urge that the law laid down therein had been breached in the matter of arraigning the applicant as an accused and thereafter arresting him. Reference was also made to the decision of the Madras High Court in R.K. M. Powergen Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Director - Writ Petition No.24700 of 2021 and decision of the Delhi High Court in Prakash Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India 2023 SC OnLine Del 336. Since the applicant was hardly aged 25 years and had spent more than three months in custody, a case was made out to release him on interim bail. The totality of circumstances were required to be considered and on that basis the applicant was entitled for interim bail.

4. Mr. H. S. Venegaonkar, learned Counsel appearing f