ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner, without approaching the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter called PMLA) for grant of bail, has preferred the present petition seeking bail in ECIR No.18/DZO-8/2016 primarily on the ground that his remand in judicial custody is illegal and without any jurisdiction of the learned Special Court to remand the petitioner any further after the presentation of the prosecution under Section 44 of the PMLA, and no cognizance having been taken thereafter as against the petitioner.

2. At the time, when this bail application was filed (i.e. on 15.06.2017), the petitioner had been remanded to E.D custody by the Special Court, PMLA, but no prosecution/complaint was filed qua the petitioner in the Special Court. As such, it was not possible for the petitioner to approach the Special Court, PMLA for bail. The Special Court, PMLA had no record of the petitioner till that time. The prosecution/complaint was filed only on 02.08.2017 during the pendency of this bail application.

3. Mr.Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that he is seeking bail on the ground of the remand of the petitioner to custody being illegal. Though, if the order of remand is found to be illegal, an accused may be entitled to be released but such order cannot be passed in a bail application and can only be directed in a criminal writ and that also by a Division Bench.

4. Be that as it may, since there is no prayer for release of the petitioner but only for grant of bail on account of infraction of statutory provisions, this petition is being entertained.

5. Certain interesting aspects have been revealed while hearing the present bail application.

6. The petitioner was arrested by the Assistant Director, PMLA, Delhi zonal office, Zone-2, Enforcement Directorate, MTNL Building, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi on 05.06.2017, purportedly in exercise of powers conferred under sub Section (1) of Section 19 of the PMLA.

7. The petitioner was made to understand that he was being investigated under the PMLA and during the course of investigation, it had transpired that he was involved in the offences punishable under the PMLA.

8. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the arrest, in itself, was unwarranted as the petitioner had joined investigation and had been appearing before the investigating agency/E.D regularly. He was arrested without obtaining any warrant under Section 155(3) of the Cr.P.C and without recording and forwarding of any FIR as required under Sections 154 and 157 of the Cr.P.C.

9. The petitioner was thereafter produced before the Special Court PMLA, on 06.06.2017.

10. An application was filed on behalf of the E.D, seeking 14 days custody remand of the petitioner. It was asserted by the E.D that from the investigations, it revealed that accused persons had conspired to convert demonetized currency into monetized currency by depositing demonetized currency in banks and thereafter obtaining demand drafts in fictitious names. With respect to the petitioner, it was stated that he had roped in other accused persons and had personally supervised the collection, transportation and deposit of illegal/demonetized currency in bank accounts. The petitioner was also alleged to have made attempts to frustrate the PMLA investigation by asking the suspected account holders of Bank of Baroda to run away. These facts, it was stated by the E.D, were collected during the course of investigation of the case.

11. It may be stated here that the investigations in the present case was taken up, pursuant to registration of FIR No.205/2016 dated 25.12.2016 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code against co-accused persons, by the Crime Branch, Delhi Police. The E.D, thereafter, registered ECIR No. 18/DZO-8/2016 dated 26.12.2016 for investigation of the offence of money laundering.

12. On such application by the E.D seeking custody re