SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Bom) 304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ, GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
Y. Shiva Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement through its Assistant Director – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 5843 of 2025
Decided On : 09-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Vikas Pahwa, Kathyaeni Ramshetty, Hrishikesh Mundargi, Soma Srinath, Shashi Preetham, Riya Arora, Pravada Raut
For the Respondents: Anil C. Singh, Chaitanya Pendse, Aditya Thakkar, Krishnakant Deshmukh, Rajdatta Nagre, Adarsh Vyas, Rama Gupta, J.P. Yagnik

Judicial review of PMLA arrests limited to procedural compliance; 'reasons to believe' under s.19 valid on prima facie material like seized assets, statements; no need for naming in predicate FIRs; offence independent of scheduled offence arraignment.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 2(1)(u), 3, 19(1), 45, 50, 66(2) - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 21, 22, 226, 227 - Arrest under s.19 - Judicial review limited to manifest arbitrariness or gross non-compliance with statutory safeguards - 'Reasons to believe' based on prima facie material including seized unaccounted cash/jewellery, witness statements under s.50, digital chats not scrutinizable for sufficiency at nascent investigation stage - Expansive definition of proceeds of crime encompasses property derived directly/indirectly from criminal activity relating to scheduled offence - No requirement for accused to be named in predicate FIRs; offence independent if process/activity connected to proceeds established - Due process including grounds of arrest memo, production before court followed - Arrest valid despite prior cooperation. (Paras 9-14)

(B) Special statutes - Arrest power exercised cautiously balancing liberty and societal interest against serious economic offences - Belated challenge after remands not to bypass s.45 bail rigours. (Paras 9, 14)

Facts of the case:
Public official in municipal corporation accused in investigation of illegal constructions on reserved lands via forged permissions in multiple FIRs under cheating/forgery provisions. ECIR registered post-demolition; searches yielded unaccounted cash, diamond jewellery, documents; corruption FIR added; arrest under PMLA after statements, chats revealing bribe cartel. Petition challenges arrest legality, seeks remand quashing/release.

Findings of Court:
All PMLA safeguards complied; tangible material provided reasons to believe; no procedural illegality; petition misconceived attempt to evade bail provisions.

Issues: Legality of arrest absent direct naming in initial FIRs; distinctness of corruption FIR; nexus of seized assets to proceeds; arrest necessity post-cooperation; judicial scrutiny scope over reasons to believe.

Ratio Decidendi: PMLA arrest upheld where arresting officer's subjective satisfaction grounded in material like disproportionate assets, witness inculpation, coded bribe communications; courts abstain from probing material adequacy/quality early; live link via investigation suffices without pre-existing arraignment.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. events leading to pmla ecir and petitioner's arrest (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arrest illegal absent predicate offence attribution (Para 5 , 6)
3. pmla safeguards complied; cartel corruption uncovered (Para 7 , 8)
4. cautious judicial review over pmla arrests (Para 9)
5. statutory arrest procedures fully followed (Para 10)
6. proceeds of crime linked to scheduled offences (Para 11 , 12)
7. money laundering independent of predicate timing (Para 13)
8. no manifest arbitrariness; bail bypass rejected (Para 14)
9. petition dismissed without prejudice to trial (Para 15)

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

1. By the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks a declaration that his arrest by the respondent no.1 (“ED”) on 13th August 2025 is illegal and violates his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further prays for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 14th August 2025, 20th August 2025 and all other orders passed in Remand Application No.1136 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (PMLA) and for a direction for his release from custody.

2. The petitioner joined the Vasai-Virar City Municipal Corporation (“VVCMC”) as a Deputy Director, Town Planning on 13th August 2010. Between 2019 and 2023, the following four First Information Reports (“FIR”) were registered at the Tulinj police station and Achole police station:

(i) FIR no.1348 of 2019 dated 26th November 2019 registered under sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”);

(ii) FIR no.195 of 2022 dated 26th April 2022 registered under section 420 of IPC;

(iii) FIR no.196 of 2022 dated 27th April 2022 registered under sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC;

(iv) FIR no.69 of 2023 dated 2nd February 2023 registered under section 420 of IPC.

3. The allegations in these FIRs pertain to illegal construction of 41 buildings by developers using upon forged permissions and fabricated documents on lands that were reserved for a sewage treatment plant and dumping ground. By an order dated 8th July 2024 in Writ Petition No.15853 of 2022, this Court directed demolition of 41 illegal buildings. The demolitions were carried on 20th February 2025, affecting approximately 2,500 families. On the very next day, i.e., 21st February 2025, an Enforcement Case Information Report vide ECIR/MBZO-II/10/2025 was registered by the ED on the basis of the FIRs bearing nos.1348/2019, 195/2022 and 69/2023 concerning the illegal constructions and matters connected therewith.

4. From March 2025 onwards, statements of several persons including the petitioner were recorded under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). On 14th May 2025, 15th May 2025 and 3rd June 2025, search and seizure operations were conducted at the petitioner’s residences in Hyderabad and Mumbai. Along with property documents, unaccounted cash of Rs. 8.23 crores and diamond-studded jewellery valued at Rs. 23.28 crores (26,338 grams) were found and seized by the ED. Based on the material so gathered, an information was shared with the State authorities and a First Information Report vide FIR no. 330 of 2025 was registered on 1st August 2025 under sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) against the petitioner. By way of an Addendum, the aforesaid FIR was made a part of the ECIR on 4th August 2025. On 13th August 2025, the petitioner was arrested by the ED and furnished with the written grounds of arrest and the reasons to believe for invoking section 19 of the PMLA. The petitioner is presently in judicial custody pursuant to successive remand orders including orders dated 14th August 2025, 20th August 2025, 3rd September 2025, 8th September 2025, 17th September 2025 and 1st October 2025. It is in this backdrop that the present petition has been filed.

5. Mr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top