Failure to Inform Relatives of Arrest Grounds Vitiates Custody Under PMLA: Kerala High Court

In a significant ruling reinforcing the constitutional safeguards afforded to arrested individuals, the Kerala High Court has granted bail to an accused in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case, primarily due to the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the petitioner's near relatives.

The Case Background

The petitioner, Anto Paul Prakash, was arrested on January 30, 2025, in connection with an investigation involving illegal Chinese loan applications. The prosecution alleged that these applications were used to phish sensitive data from mobile phones, which was subsequently leveraged to extort money through various mule accounts. Following his arrest, the petitioner moved the High Court seeking bail, contending that his fundamental rights under Article 22(1) had been violated.

The Procedural Imperative: A Mandatory Requirement

The core legal question revolved around the mandatory requirement to inform an arrestee—and their near relatives—of the specific grounds for arrest. While the ED argued that the grounds were provided to the petitioner in writing at the time of arrest, the petitioner’s defense highlighted the omission of notifying family members, a requirement crystallized by several recent Supreme Court precedents.

The Court meticulously analyzed the procedural obligations, emphasizing that the right to know the grounds of arrest is not merely a formality but a "mandatory constitutional condition" essential to Article 21 rights.

Retrospective Application of Legal Precedents

The respondent argued that the requirement to inform relatives was clarified by the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) after the petitioner's arrest, and thus should not apply retrospectively. However, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas rejected this view.

Drawing upon * Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal *, the Court reiterated that judgments by Constitutional Courts interpret existing law and are, by default, retrospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. Consequently, the procedural failure at the time of arrest rendered the detention legally vulnerable.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the gravity of procedural adherence in criminal investigations:

• On the necessity of communication: "Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Art.21 is curtailed. When such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has been arrested."
• On the rights of relatives: "The grounds of arrest should not only be provided to the arrestee but also to his family members and relatives so that necessary arrangements are made to secure the release of the person arrested at the earliest possible opportunity..."
• On the nature of judicial interpretation: "The judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively."

The Court’s Verdict

Finding that the respondent failed to provide evidence that the grounds of arrest were communicated to any near relative or friend, the Court concluded that the arrest was vitiated. Anto Paul Prakash was granted bail subject to several conditions, including the execution of a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties.

This ruling serves as a stern reminder to investigative agencies that the pursuit of justice under statutes like the PMLA does not bypass the fundamental constitutional safeguards designed to protect the liberty of the individual. Failure to adhere to the mandate of communicating grounds of arrest, even in complex economic offenses, remains a valid ground for the grant of bail.