IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J.
Surender Panwar – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
CRM-M No. 41194 of 2024
Decided On : 23-09-2024
JUDGMENT :
Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J.
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) with the following prayer:
(ii) to set aside the two consequential remand orders: (a) order dated 20.07.2024 (P-2) and (b) order dated 29.07.2024 (P-4) passed by learned Special Court, PMLA, Ambala on the basis of unlawful and illegal arrest of the petitioner in case ECIR/GNZO/19/2023 dated 23.09.2023 (for short “ECIR No. 19”) under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of PMLA.
(iii) to issue an order or direction as this Court deems appropriate to release the petitioner forthwith and/or also on interim bail during the pendency of the petition in the exigency of forthcoming State Legislative Assembly elections in the State of Haryana.
(vi) further issue any appropriate order, relief or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. In the intervening night of 19/20.07.2024 at 01.40 a.m, petitioner was arrested in the Zonal Office, Enforcement Directorate (for short “E.D”), Gurugram. For reference, the allegations of E.D, as contained in the “Grounds of Arrest” dated 20.07.2024 (R-2 colly.), are recapitulated as under:
2. Further, an FIR No. 0021 dated 19.01.2024 u/s. 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act 1957, u/s. 15 & 16 of Environment Protection Act, 1986 and u/s. 120-B & 420 of IPC, 1860 was recorded at P.S. Pratap Nagar, Yamuna Nagar against Dilbag Singh, Rajinder Singh, Kulwinder Singh (Proprietor- PS Buildtech), Manoj Kumar Wadhwa, Angad Singh Makkar, Gurpartap Singh Mann, Raman Ojha, Rajesh Chikara, Inderpal Singh & Others. Above accused persons are related to entities/firms namely Development Strategies India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Royalty Company, Mubarikpur Royalty Company, JSM Foods Pvt. Ltd. & PS Buildtech, which were involved in illegal mining. This FIR was subsumed and taken on record in the proceedings of the ECIR bearing no. ECIR/GNZO/19/2023 dated 23.09.2023.
3. Based on the information gathered from the field enquiry, it was also found that a huge number of fake e-rawana bills are being generated by these Mining groups on the portal of Mining Department showing purchase from other states and the electronic purchase has been given to various stone crushers and screening plants, through whom, on the basis of this electronic purchase, illegal mining is being done in large quantities from the surrounding areas of Yamuna Nagar, causing huge revenue loss to the state government. No mining is being done from the mining areas mentioned in the e-rawana bills generated by the groups, nor can mining be done from those areas because there is no availability of minerals there at present.
4. Further, on the basis of discreet enquiries, investigation and material in possession, search under section 17 of PMLA, 2002 was carried out on 04.01.2024 on various identified entities & Directors/ Promoters/ Employees/ Key persons and others and concluded on 08.01.2024, which resulted in recovery of various incriminating documents, digital devices, valuables and other items.
5. During the search proceedings, statement of various key/related persons with respect to mining wer
Arvind Kejriwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Chairman-cum-Managing Director Coal India Limited and others vs. Ananta Saha and others
H.N. Rishbud vs. State of Delhi
Monica Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2008) 8 SCC 781
Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai vs. State of Maharashtra
P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Pragyna Singh Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra
Prakash Singh Badal vs. State of Punjab
Pranab Chatterjee vs. State of Bihar
Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Rahul Modi
State of Bihar vs. J.A.C. Saldanha
State of Maharashtra vs. Ishwar PirajiKalpatri
The court ruled that the arrest of the petitioner was unlawful due to insufficient evidence linking him to illegal mining, which is not a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Ac....
Money Laundering – Power to arrest under Section 19 (1) of PMLA is not for the purpose of investigation – Arrest can and should wait and power in terms of Section 19(1) of PMLA can be exercised only ....
The necessity of providing documented 'reasons to believe' at the time of arrest under Section 19 of PMLA is a statutory requirement that must be adhered to for the arrest to be lawful.
Judicial review of PMLA arrests limited to procedural compliance; 'reasons to believe' under s.19 valid on prima facie material like seized assets, statements; no need for naming in predicate FIRs; o....
The court established the statutory right of the enforcement agency to conduct further investigation and file subsequent complaints without seeking prior permission, as empowered by the provisions of....
The court upheld the legality of the arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, confirming compliance with statutory requirements, including timely communication of grounds for arrest.
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as there were no reasonable grounds for believing that she had committed an off....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.