The Enforcement Directorate can seek custody of arrested individuals under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, but such custodial requests must be evaluated within the framework of existing law ensuring due process.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a direction to the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenue by name Mr. Senthil Balaji, S/o. Velusamy, aged about 48 years, before this Court and set him at liberty.)

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by Mrs. Megala, a lady in distress consequent to arrest of her husband V.Senthil Balaji, who was arrested by the respondents in the dark morning of 13.06.2023.

2. V.Senthil Balaji would be called ''the detenue/ accused.''

3. The relief sought in the petition is for a direction against the respondents, in effect, the Directorate of Enforcement at Chennai, represented by both its Deputy Director and Assistant Director, to produce the body of the detenueand for the Court to set him at liberty.

4. This Petition had been filed on 14.06.2023 itself and since it involved proceedings against a sitting Minister, it had been brought to the notice of the Hon''ble Chief Justice. It was listed for hearing before a Division Bench [M.Sundar & R.Sakthivel,J.] on 15.06.2023. On that date, when the matter first came up, one of the learned Judges rescued himself. The Division Bench noted as follows:-

“There is recusal by one of us [R.SAKTHIVEL, J.] Registry to do the needful.”

5. On the very same day, taking advantage of the standing instructions issued, there had been a mention before the Coordinate Division Bench [Mrs.J.Nisha Banu and D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, JJ] seeking urgent hearing of the matter. It was also listed before the said Division Bench. They passed interim orders, but this Court is not examining the same, but would be referring to the same during the course of the present order.

6. It is suffice to point out that the Division Bench finally pronounced orders in the Habeas Corpus on 04.07.2023. For reasons which they had substantiated in their respective Judgments, both the learned Judges differed on crucial aspects.

7. Hon''ble Mrs. Justice J.Nisha Banu had held as follows:-

“1. The Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition is maintainable;

2. Enforcement Directorate is not entrusted with the powers to seek police custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002;

3. Miscellaneous Petition filed by Respondent 1 seeking exclusion of the period is dismissed; and

4. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.”

8. On the other hand, Hon''ble Mr. Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy held as follows:-

“(i). The Habeas Corpus Petition in H.C.P.No. 1021 of 2023 shall stand dismissed

(ii). The period from 14.06.2023 till such time the detenu/accused is fit for custody of the respondent shall be deducted from the initial period of 15 days under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

(iii) The detenu/accused shall continue the treatment at Cauvery Hospital until discharge or for a period of 10 days from today whichever is earlier and thereafter, if further treatment is necessary, it can be only at the Prison/Prison Hospital as the case may be;

(iv) As and when he is medically fit, the respondents will be able to move the appropriate