The court determined that the unlawful restraint of the petitioners on 27.10.2023 constituted an illegal arrest, rendering the subsequent remand orders void.

Judgment

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Since both the writ petitions arise from a common FIR, besides when in both the writ petitions a challenge is made to the remand orders made by the learned trial Judge concerned. Moreover, when in both the writ petitions a common relief is espoused qua the petitioners becoming released from judicial custody, therefore, both the writ petitions are amenable for becoming decided through a common verdict.

2. The petitioners became arrested and also became remanded to judicial custody through an order made on 28.10.2023, by the Remandee Court concerned. Therefore, it has to be determined whether the arrest of the petitioners was terms of the relevant provisions embodied in Sections 17-A, 18(1), and, in Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2002”).

3. In the above regard, it is necessary to hereinafter extract the provisions (supra), which do become extracted hereinafter.  

“17. Search and seizure.-- (1) xxx

(a) enter and search any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft where he has reason to suspect that such records or proceeds of crime are kept;”

“18. Search of persons.-- (1) If an authority, authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has secreted about his person or in anything under his possession, ownership or control, any record or proceeds of crime which may be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act, he may search that person and seize such record or property which may be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act.”

“19. Power to arrest.-- (1) If the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession, reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under this Act, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.”

4. Be that as it may, the larger legal questions which arise for adjudication being made thereons, are as under:-

i) Whether the formal arrest of the petitioners, as became made, on 28.10.2023, and, when on such date the grounds or reasons to believe, thus for the accused becoming arrested, rather became supplied to them, is to be taken to be the relevant date.

ii) Moreover, if the said date is taken to be the date of the accused becoming actually arrested, through a formal arrest memo becoming drawn, and, when the apposite compliance thus in the above manner, was made to the above extracted statutory provisions, whether yet the restraint, as made, upon the present petitioners, as emerging from theirs, being respectively lodged, into the apposite seized car, and/or, in the vehicle of the Enforcement Directorate, rather tantamounts, to theirs being thus actually arrested then i.e. on 27.10.2023. Moreover, as such it has to be determined, whether the said manner of restraint being caused, upon the petitioners, on 27.10.2023, thus thereby makes the said restraint to be construable to theirs being then arrested. In addition, if on the said date no grounds for theirs becoming arrested or the reasons for theirs becoming arrested, became supplied to them, thus whether in terms, of the verdict recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.3051-52 of 2023 titled as “Pankaj Bansal Versus Union of Indian and others”, thus any pervasive breach became hence caused to the mandatory statutory provisions (supra). Moreover, whether the restraint or arrest as became encumbered, upon the accused on 27.10.2023, is liable to be pronounced to be completely non est or illegal. Resultantly, whether the challenged orders of remand are to be declared to be perfunctory and mechanically made, besides