IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the 24-hour period for producing an arrested individual before a magistrate begins from the time of formal arrest, and that individuals summoned under Section 50 of the PMLA are not considered accused until they are arrested.

JUDGMENT

Revati Mohite Dere, J. - By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following substantive relief :

'i. Pass necessary orders and directions thereby declaring the arrest to be illegal and quashing the order granting remand, dated 08.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Special PMLA Court Mumbai, Maharashtra in the matter titled "Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement vs Shri Ram Kotumal Issrani" in PMLA RA No. 995/2023, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom and thereby declaring the arrest and remand of the Petitioner as illegal and thereby releasing the Petitioner forthwith as the same is passed in violation of Constitutional mandate as enshrined in Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 19 of PMLA. '

2. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's arrest and consequential remand was illegal and as such, the petitioner be released forthwith. According to Mr. Aggarwal, the petitioner not having been produced before the learned Special Court within 24 hours of his arrest as mandated in law, makes the petitioner's arrest illegal.

3. Mr. Aggarwal relied on the following dates :

DATE

EVENTS

03.08.2023

The 4th summons was issued to the petitioner by the respondent-ED to join investigation on 07.08.2023 at 10:30 a.m.

07.08.2023

The petitioner joined the investigation at 10:30 a.m. According to the petitioner, his personal liberty was curtailed and his movements restricted, inasmuch as, his mobile phone was seized by the respondent-ED at 10:30 a.m; and at all times since the petitioner entered the respondent-ED Office, the petitioner was surrounded by officers and the petitioner was not permitted to talk to anyone and that even when he used the washroom, the ED Officers accompanied him, thus showing that the petitioner's liberty was curtailed.

07.08.2023- 08.08.2023

Respondent-ED interrogated the petitioner the whole night despite the petitioner being medically unfit and was kept awake for 20 hours and was not allowed to sleep, despite the petitioner having joined investigation on three previous occasions where his statement under Section 50 of the PMLA was recorded on every occasion. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was in clear violation of the petitioner's fundamental right 'Right to Sleep', which forms part of his right to life, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

08.08.2023 at 5:30 a.m.

The petitioner was shown formally arrested on the said date and time.

08.08.2023 5:30 a.m- 5:00 p.m.

The petitioner was not produced before the nearest Magistrate / nearest Spl. PMLA Court, New Delhi and nor any transit remand was sought from the nearest PMLA Court, New Delhi and instead, the petitioner was brought to Mumbai by a flight and was taken to the office of the ED at Mumbai. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was in violation of Article 22(3) of the Constitution of India which provides for accused to be produced before the nearest Magistrate.

08.08.2023 at 5:00 p.m.

Petitioner was produced before the learned Special Judge, PMLA Court, Mumbai at 5:00 p.m. on 08.08.2023, wherein the respondent-ED sought transit remand of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was non-cooperative. It appears that the respondent-ED did not press for transit remand to take the petitioner to Gujarat and instead, the petitioner was remanded to the respondent-ED's custody.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the period of 24 hours from 07.08.2023 at 10:30 a.m. i.e. from the time when the petitioner was taken into custody by the respondent-ED and his liberty was curtailed, expired on 08.08.2023 at 10:30 a.m, since the petitioner was not produced before the nearest Magistrate, even excluding the travel time. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was in violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr.