IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of written reasons for arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, while also affirming the sufficiency of evidence against the accused-petitioner for bail denial.

ORDER :

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. on behalf of the accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with ECIR No. JPZO/29/2023 dated 21.08.2023, registered for the offences under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (from now on referred to as ‘Act of 2002’) and punishable under Section 4 of Act of 2002.

2. It is contended by learned senior counsel Mr. Vikram Choudhary for the accused petitioner that accused-petitioner Sanjay Badaya has falsely been implicated under Section 3 (4) of the Act of 2002. It is vehemently argued that similarly placed co-accused Piyush Jain has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 09.09.2024, and the case of the present accused-petitioner is akin to the case of the other co-accused Piyush Jain. It is also contended that against the present petitioner, the charge sheet has already been filed, and the petitioner has been in custody since 16.07.2024. The charge sheet itself is voluminous, and the prosecution relied upon 47 witnesses; it is unlikely that the trial will conclude shortly. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner has relied on the judgment of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court granted bail to the accused, Manish Sisodia, after considering the prolonged incarceration of 17 months, observing that it is unlikely the trial would conclude shortly. It is also contended that Sections 19 (1) & 19 (2) of the Act of 2002 were also not adhered to. It is also vehemently put forth by the learned senior counsel that in the primary grounds of the petitioner’s arrest, it was mentioned that despite the issuance of summons more than 3 times, the petitioner did not join the investigation even after accepting the summons for appearance on 15.03.2024 and also not submitted the essential documents and remained passive while tendering his statements on 16.07.2024.

3. It is contended that the grounds of arrest mentioned in the memo in Para Nos. 19, 20 & 23 are contrary to the law. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner has heavily placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 3051-3052 of 2023 dated 03.10.2023, whereby it was held that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) needed to provide written reasons of belief for arresting a person arrested under the provisions of the Act of 2002. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Arvind Kejriwal, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court formulated the following questions:

“1. Is the “need and necessity to arrest” a separate ground to challenge the order of arrest passed in terms of Section 19(1) of the PML Act?

2. Whether the “need and necessity to arrest” refers to the satisfaction of formal parameters to arrest and take a person into custody, or it relates to other personal grounds and reasons regarding the necessity to arrest a person in the facts and circumstances of the said case?

3. If questions (a) and (b) are answered in the affirmative, what are the parameters and facts that are to be taken into consideration by the court while examining the question of “need and necessity to arrest?”

Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said matter, allowed the interim bail application of Arvind Kejriwal because the right to life and liberty is sacrosanct, and the petitioner has remained in incarceration for 190 days. It is also argued that the non- cooperation of the petitioner in response to the same issued under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 would not be enough to render the petitioner liable to be arrested under Section 19 of the Act of 2002. It is also vehemently argued that many documents have been deliberately eschewed from consideration, including several statements of the petitioner and other documents. In the case of Arvind Kejriwal, it has been held that an officer cannot be allowed to selectively pick and choose the material implica