IMPORTANT POINT
The duty of the investigating agency to inform the court about unexecuted warrants, the need for compliance with statutory provisions, and the unjustifiability of the arrest and remand under the PMLA were the central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J.

1. The present petition under Section 47 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (`PMLA') read with Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC') seeks the following prayers:

"a. to call for the records, examine the same for the purpose of satisfying itself to the correctness, legality and propriety and set aside the impugned order dated 16.02.2023; and/or

b. to remand the case to the trial court for further consideration on the

c. to cancel the order for interim bail and send the accused respondent to Judicial custody till remand application is reconsidered by trial court.

d. to pass any such other or further order(s) as mat do complete justice on the facts and circumstances of the case."

Background

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are as under:

i. ECIR/09/DLZO/2016 was initiated by the petitioner/Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as the `department') against 11 accused persons including the present respondent, Sh. Dev Inder Bhalla who was stated to be Director of M/s Interdev Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., Singapore.

ii. It is the case of the department that during course of investigation in the aforesaid ECIR, summons were issued to the respondent under Section 50(2) and 50(3) of the PMLA on various dates to join the investigation, however, he did not appear. To secure his presence, on an application moved by the department, open ended bailable warrants were issued by Mr. Naresh Kumar Malhotra, Special Judge, New Delhi vide order dated 12.01.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that on completion of investigation, a complaint was filed against 11 persons including the present respondent under Section 44 for the PMLA for commission of offences under Section 3/70 punishable under Section 4 of the said act.

iii. Upon filing of the said complaint, summons were issued to the 11 persons including the present respondent vide order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act): CBI-15, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi.

iv. As per the records of the present case, the present respondent arrived in India at Netaji Subhash Place Airport, West Bengal on the night of 13.02.2023 at 23:15 hours. In view of the open ended non-bailable warrants, a look-out circular was in operation and the respondent was detained at the said airport. Subsequently, said non-bailable warrants were executed by the department on 14.02.2023 at 2100 hours.

v. The respondent was produced before the learned Special Court on 15.02.2023 and was sent to judicial custody.

vi. On the same day, an application was moved by the department seeking police custody of the respondent.

vii. Vide impugned order dated 16.02.2023, the learned Special Judge dismissed the said application and released the respondent on interim bail.

3. Before proceeding further, it is noted that preliminary objections to the maintainability of the present petition was raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, in response to which learned Special Counsel made his submissions drawing the attention of this Court to various judgments demonstrating that the present petition is maintainable. Thereafter, during the course of further arguments, learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that he is not pressing the said preliminary objections and, therefore, the said issue has not been dealt with in the present judgment.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner/Directorate of Enforcement

4. At the outset, learned Special Counsel for the department drew the attention of this Court to the following paragraphs of the impugned order dated 16.02.2023:

"28. The short and important question that arises for consideration is whether the agency is justified and empowered to apprehend, arrest the accused and seek his custody remand here, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the Agency is aware of the fact that a Complaint