The court reinforces that for arrests under the PMLA, there must be a rational basis for the belief and necessity to detain the accused, complying with legal safeguards.

1. By this petition the petitioner invokes writ jurisdiction as well as inherent jurisdiction of this Court under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC") essentially on the ground of alleged illegal arrest and detention of the petitioner by respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 29th July, 2024 along with seven to nine of their officers who arrived at his residence, purportedly to carry out a search and seizure under S.17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short " the P.M.L Act"). No "reasons to believe" as mandated under S.17 of the P.M.L Act were served on him.

2. Without going into the merits of the case, a short point which needs to be looked into is, as to whether arrest of the petitioner by the respondents was in consonance with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1703 : (AIR 2024 SC 3373), in the sense, whether there was sufficient material with the authorized officer who had recorded his "reasons to believe" in writing and whether there was a necessity to arrest the petitioner?

3. We heard Mr. Kadam, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Venegavkar, learned Special Public Prosecutor, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Directorate of Enforcement for quite some time.

4. At the outset, Mr. Kadam, learned Senior Counsel would argue that arrest of the petitioner and his detention by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 29th July, 2024 around 7.00 a.m by seven to nine officers, who approached his residence under the pretext of search and seizure was illegal, untenable and against the principles enunciated in various pronouncement of the Supreme Court viz: in 2 the case of V. Senthil Balaji v. State and others 2024 (3) SCC 51 : (AIR 2023 SC (Supp) 965), Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244 : (AIROnLine 2023 SC 809), Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 : (AIR 2022 SC (Supp) 1283) and, so also, a latest decision in case of Arvind Kejriwal (supra).

5. Per contra, Mr. Venegavkar, learned Special Public Prosecutor justified the arrest of the petitioner by contending, inter alia, that the grounds of arrest have been furnished to the petitioner in ECIR No. ECIR / MBZO - II / 40/2023 as stated at page Nos.299-300 of the petition on 29th July, 2024 when he was arrested. Mr. Venegavkar would argue that since there existed "sufficient reasons to believe" on the basis of the grounds enunciated in the grounds of arrest, the petitioner came to be arrested on 29th July, 2024. Mr. Venegavkar would argue that arrest of the petitioner was necessary, precisely for the following reasons;

(a) To prevent the destruction and tampering of evidence;

(b) To confront the petitioner with various persons who are involved in these activities;

(c) To trace out the diverted funds which is the proceeds of crime;

(d) To prevent the petitioner from influencing the witnesses;

(e) To identify other persons involved in these activities".

6. The Competent Authority furnished the aforesaid "reasons to believe" to the petitioner by stating that the petitioner is guilty of the offence of money laundering in view of S.3 of the PML Act which is punishable under S.4 of the said Act and, therefore, he came to be arrested in view of S.19 (1) of the P.M.L Act.

7. Mr. Venegavkar has also invited our attention to the material in possession of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 prior to the arrest of the petitioner as stated hereinbelow;

"I. Documents of various entities such as:

i. Brijmohan Securities

ii. Karvy Financials

iii. ECL Pvt. Ltd

iv. IIFL v. India Bulls

vi. IFCI ventures

vii. Mahan Synthetics

viii. Bank Statements of all the 3 companies and also Bank statements of the Petit