Regular bail plea by accused no.1 in a KCOCA case alleging organised property fraud through forged documents and fraudulent decrees. Contending grounds of arrest were not served, the petitioner sought bail; the court found the intimation notice and remand applications satisfied constitutional safeguards and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9537 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
JOHN MOSES D @ MADAN KUMAR S/O JOHN DEVAMANI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO. 201, 2ND FLOOR KAVITHA RESIDENCY MARUTHI SEVA NAGARA BENGALURU - 560 033. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDESH CHOUTA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI SUNIL KUMAR S, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: High Court of Karnataka
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BHARATI NAGAR P.S NOW INVESTIGATION BY CID SPECIAL ENQUIRY WING REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ASHOK N NAIK, SPP)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON REGULAR BAIL IN CR.NO.8/2022, FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 465, 468, 471, 420, 417, 120(B), 34 OF IPC, WHCIH IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-1).
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESEVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.11.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CAV ORDER
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
remanded to police custody for a period of six days. Subsequently, he was remanded to judicial custody in the main case i.e., Crime No.467/2021. Petitioner who was granted bail in Crime No.467/2021 was released from the Central Prision, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru, on 21.07.2024 and immediately thereafter, he was arrested in the present case. In the meanwhile, on 20.07.2024, the competent authority had granted prior approval for invocation of the provisions of KCOCA against the accused in Crime No.8/2022, and therefore, the petitioner who was arrested on 21.07.2024 was produced before the Special Court on 22.07.2024 and remanded to judicial custody. Bail application filed by the petitioner before the Special Court under Section 439 Cr.PC was thereafter rejected on 03.09.2024. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
Therefore, the provisions of KCOCA has been belatedly invoked in the present case. Initially, the Court of Magistrate had refused to remand the petitioner to judicial custody in the present case. Thereafter, he was released from the prison and the police have arrested him immediately and produced him before the Special Court which has remanded him to judicial custody. Investigation of the case is completed, and therefore, petitioner's custody is no more required. The grounds of arrest were not served on the petitioner on the date of his arrest. Therefore, petitioner's remand is bad in law. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:
No.13835/2024, DISPOSED OF ON 18.07.2024 ;
cannot be made blindly without application of mind, and in this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TUSHARBHAI RANJINIKANTBHAI
SHAH VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1897 . He
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
refers to Section 50(1) of Cr.PC and Articles 22(1) & 22(5) of the Constitution of India and submits that service of grounds of arrest on the accused immediately after his arrest is mandatory and failure to do so would entitle the accused for bail. He, accordingly, prays to allow the petition.
in Crime No.8/2022 on 15.07.2024 and 18.07.2024. In the remand applications dated 15.07.2024 and 18.07.2024, the facts and particulars of the case in Crime No.8/2022 is briefly explained and the grounds on which petitioner's police custody
is sought is also mentioned. In addition to the same, immediately after the arrest of the petitioner on 21.07.2024, he
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
has been served with the intimation notice in which the brief facts of the case and invoking of the provisions of KCOCA against the petitioner is mentioned. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that grounds of arrest was not served on the petitioner immediately after his arrest. He submits that the intimation notice dated 21.07.2024 and remand applications dated 15.07.2024 and 18.07.2024 are in compliance of the requirement of Section 50(1) of Cr.PC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. In support of this argument of his, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAM KISHOR ARORA VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT - (2024)7 SCC 599 . He also submits that nomenclature of the document would become irrelevant and only its contents matters and in support of this argument of his, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TAMBOLI RAMANLOL MOTILAL VS GHANCHI CHIMANLAL KESHAVLAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANOTHER - 1993 Supp (1) SCC 295 , and also on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of V.DHANASINGU & OTHERS VS JAYACHANDRAN @ JAYASANKAR & ANOTHER - S.A.No.536/2012 and
M.P.No.1/2012 . He submits that since petitioner was produced before the court under body warrant in Crime No.8/2022 and remand application seeking his police custody was filed by the prosecution, there was no necessity for serving a separate communication informing the grounds of arrest to the petitioner in the present case and in support of this argument of his, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ARVIND KEJRIWAL VS CENTRAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2550 . He refers to the order sheet of the learned Magistrate in Crime No.8/2022 and submits that petitioner was represented by an Advocate when the remand application was filed by the prosecution. He submits that on 20.07.2024, the learned Magistrate had not remanded petitioner to judicial custody for the reason that, by then already the provisions of KCOCA was invoked, and therefore, the learned Magistrate had not jurisdiction to remand him to judicial custody, and therefore, petitioner was remanded in the main case. He submits that the petitioner is involved in more than 100 cases of similar nature and considering the seriousness and gravity of the crime committed, the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.7714/2020 disposed of on
04.11.2020, had directed the Registrar of Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, to institute police investigation. He submits that petitioner is the kingpin of the syndicate which is involved in committing organized crimes. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
tenant who was not even a party to the proceedings before the Civil Court. Applications were also filed for breaking open the door of the premises, in respect of which, delivery warrant was issued in the execution proceedings and based on the same, the original tenant was evicted from the premises which was subject matter of the aforesaid civil proceedings. The material on record would go to show that petitioner and other accused persons who are his accomplices instituted about 116 such proceedings before various courts in Bengaluru and they have collected crores of rupees from the original tenants who were in occupation of the premises by threatening them of eviction. As against the petitioner, more than 110 criminal cases of similar nature have been registered in various police stations in Bengaluru, and out of the same, 108 cases have been referred to CID for the purpose of investigation. The investigating agency appears to have laid charge sheet in 51 cases and the remainig cases are pending investigation. The coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.7714/2020 disposed of on 04.11.2020 recognizing the seriousness of the acts committed by the accused persons in these cases, has directed the Registrar of Small Causes Court, Bengaluru, to initiate action including
police investigation even against the staff of the courts, if found involved. Having regard to the acts committed by the accused persons in an organized manner, the competent authority by order dated 20.07.2024 has granted prior approval to invoke the provisions of KCOCA in this case, and therefore, the present case is now transferred to the Special Judge designated for trial of the cases instituted under the provisions of KCOCA, who has now rejected the bail application of the petitioner.
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
"34. The more important issue presently is as to how ED is required to “inform” the arrested person of the grounds for his/her arrest. Prayer (iii) in the writ petitions filed by the appellants pertained to this.
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
the person arrested under Section 19 thereof to seek release on bail but it postulates that unless the twin conditions prescribed thereunder are satisfied, such a person would not be entitled to grant of bail. The twin conditions set out in the provision are that, firstly, the court must be satisfied, after giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for release, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person is not guilty of the offence and, secondly, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. To meet this requirement, it would be essential for the arrested person to be aware of the grounds on which the authorised officer arrested him/her under Section 19 and the basis for the officer's “reason to believe” that he/she is guilty of an offence punishable under the 2002 Act. It is only if the arrested person has knowledge of these facts that he/she would be in a position to plead and prove before the Special Court that there are grounds to believe that he/she is not guilty of such offence, so as to avail the relief of bail. Therefore, communication of the grounds of arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19 PMLA, is meant to serve this higher purpose and must be given due importance.
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
to forward a copy of the arrest order along with the material in his possession, referred to in Section 19(1), to the adjudicating authority in a sealed envelope. Though it is not necessary for the arrested person to be supplied with all the material that is forwarded to the adjudicating authority under Section 19(2), he/she has a constitutional and statutory right to be “informed” of the grounds of arrest, which are compulsorily recorded in writing by the authorised officer in keeping with the mandate of Section 19(1) PMLA. As already noted hereinbefore, it seems that the mode of informing this to the persons arrested is left to the option of ED's authorised officers in different parts of the country i.e. to either furnish such grounds of arrest in writing or to allow such grounds to be read by the arrested person or be read over and explained to such person.
“ ARREST ORDER
Whereas, I ……… Director/Deputy Director/Assistant Director/Officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government, have reason to
believe that …… (name of the person arrested) resident of …… has been guilty of an offence punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003);
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), I hereby arrest the said …… (name of the person arrested) at …… hours on …… and he has been informed of the grounds for such arrest.
Dated at …… on this …… day of …… Two thousand
Arresting Officer (Signature with Seal)
To
(Name and complete address of the person arrested)”
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
person. Conveyance of this information is not only to apprise the arrested person of why he/she is being arrested but also to enable such person to seek legal counsel and, thereafter, present a case before the court under Section 45 to seek release on bail, if he/she so chooses. In this regard, the grounds of arrest in V. Senthil Balaji - (2024) 3 SCC 51 are placed on record and we find that the same run into as many as six pages. The grounds of arrest recorded in the case on hand in relation to Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal have not been produced before this Court, but it was contended that they were produced at the time of remand. However, as already noted earlier, this did not serve the intended purpose. Further, in the event their grounds of arrest were equally voluminous, it would be well-nigh impossible for either Pankaj Bansal or Basant Bansal to record and remember all that they had read or heard being read out for future recall so as to avail legal remedies. More so, as a person who has just been arrested would not be in a calm and collected frame of mind and may be utterly incapable of remembering the contents of the grounds of arrest read by or read out to him/her. The very purpose of this constitutional and statutory protection would be rendered nugatory by permitting the authorities concerned to merely read out or permit reading of the grounds of arrest, irrespective of their length and detail, and claim due compliance with the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate under Section 19(1) PMLA.
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) PMLA, we have no hesitation in holding that their arrest was not in keeping with the provisions of Section 19(1) PMLA. Further, as already noted supra, the clandestine conduct of ED in proceeding against the appellants, by recording the second ECIR immediately after they secured interim protection in relation to the first ECIR, does not commend acceptance as it reeks of arbitrary exercise of power. In effect, the arrest of the appellants and, in consequence, their remand to the custody of ED and, thereafter, to judicial custody, cannot be sustained."
"20. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as, this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his Advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
“7. The life and liberty of an individual is so sacrosanct that it cannot be allowed to be interfered with except under the authority of law. It is a principle which has been recognised and applied in all civilised countries. In our Constitution Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty not only to citizens of India but also to aliens.”
Thus, any attempt to violate such fundamental right, guaranteed by Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, would have to be dealt with strictly.
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be.
"45. It was the fervent contention of learned ASG that in the case of Ram Kishor Arora (supra), a twoJudge Bench of this Court interpreted the judgment in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) to be having a prospective effect and thus the ratio of Pankaj Bansal
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
(supra) cannot come to the appellant's aid. Indisputably, the appellant herein was remanded to police custody on 4th October, 2023 whereas the judgment in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) was delivered on 3rd October, 2023. Merely on a conjectural submission regarding the late uploading of the judgment, learned ASG cannot be permitted to argue that the ratio of Pankaj Bansal (supra) would not apply to the present case. Hence, the plea of Shri Raju, learned ASG that the judgment in Pankaj Bansal (supra) would not apply to the proceedings of remand made on 4th October, 2023 is misconceived.
"73. In Prabir Purkayastha (supra), this Court went beyond the rigours of the PML Act/UAPA. Drawing a distinction between “reasons to arrest” and “grounds for arrest”, it held that while the former refers to the formal parameters, the latter would require all such
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
details in the hands of the investigating officer necessitating the arrest. Thus, the grounds of arrest would be personal to the accused."
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
and violation of the same would render the remand bad in law. It is also held that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal's case supra and Prabir Purkayastha's case supra, is not only binding on all the Courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, but in terms of Article 144, the law shall be followed by all the concerned including the courts and authorities exercising the power of arrest. Since the judgment in Pankaj Bansal's case supra was rendered on 03.10.2023, and in Prabir Purkayastha's case supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the judgment in Pankaj Bansal's case supra, shall be retrospectively effective, any arrest made on 03.10.2023 necessarily must ensure compliance of service of grounds of arrest in the manner known to law, immediately.
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
"44. As discussed above, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pankaj Bansal's case, with reference to section 19(1) of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Article 22 of the Constitution of India observed that “grounds of arrest be communicated in writing”. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabir Purkayastha's case explained the difference between the ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’, stating that the grounds of arrest may convey to the arrested accused all basic facts, on which he was being arrested to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against the custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the grounds of arrest would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’, which are general in nature.
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
petitioner has received the same under acknowledgment and his signature is found on the said notice. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has not received the said notice. The said intimation notice dated 21.07.2024 reads as under:
"¥Éưøï G¥Á¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj «±ÉõÀ «ZÁgÀuÉUÀ¼À «¨sÁUÀ, ¹Lr, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀ 21-07-2024.
:: w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ £ÉÆÃn¸ï ::
F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀUÉ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¨sÁgÀw £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA: 08/2022 PÀ®A : 420, 465 468, 471 120(©) gÉ/« 34 L¦¹ eÉÆvÉUÉ PÀ®A 03 Karnataka Control of Organised
Crime Act-2000gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è DgÉÆæAiÀiÁzÀ-1 eÁ£ï ªÉƸÀ¸ï.r @ ªÀÄzsÀ£ï PÀĪÀiÁgï ©£ï eÁ£ï.¦ zÉêÀªÀÄtÂ, 47 ªÀµÀð, ªÁ¸À: £ÀA: 201, 2£Éà ªÀĺÀr, PÀ«vÁ gɹqɤì, ªÀiÁgÀw ¸ÉêÁ £ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 033. DzÀ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¨sÁgÀw £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA 08/2022 gÀ°è ¸ÉÃAmï eÁ£ï gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ²ªÀ£À±ÉnÖ UÁqÀð£ï gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 10/07 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 10/10 UÀ¼À ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Àȶֹ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¹ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸À«zÀÝ PÉƼÀZÉ ¤ªÁ¹UÀ¼À£ÀÄß CPÀæªÀĪÁV vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀÄÄRå
DgÉÆæAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21.07.2024 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 07.30 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è zÀ¸ÀÛVj ªÀiÁr WÀ£À ¸ÀªÉÇðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀj¹ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¸ÀÄ¥À¢ðAiÀÄ°ènÖgÀÄvÉÛ. vÀ¤SÁ PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÄVzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 22.07.2024 gÀAzÀÄ WÀ£À ¥ÀæzsÁ£À ¹n ¹«¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉµÀ£Àì £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. ¤ÃªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀQîgÀ ªÀÄÆSÁAvÀgÀ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀƤ£À £ÉgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ.
(¥ÀĤÃvï PÀĪÀiÁgï.Dgï) ¥Éưøï G¥Á¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ & vÀ¤SÁ¢PÁj
«±ÉõÀ «ZÁgÀuÉUÀ¼À «¨sÁUÀ, ¹Lr, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
gÀªÀjUÉ,
eÁ£ï ªÉƸÀ¸ï. r @ ªÀÄzÀ£ï PÀĪÀiÁgï ©£ï eÁ£ï.¦ zÉêÀªÀÄtÂ, 47 ªÀµÀð, ªÁ¸À: £ÀA:201, 2£Éà ªÀĺÀr, PÀ«vÁ gɹqɤì, ªÀiÁgÀw ¸ÉêÁ £ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560033."
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
21.07.2024 would go to show that the same contains the following particulars:
decree;
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
(ix) invoking of the provisions of KCOCA in Crime No.8/2022.
all basic facts of the case in which the petitioner is being arrested has been mentioned, the date on which he would be produced before the jurisdictional court is mentioned and he is also informed to take necessary legal recourse through his advocate. The contents of Annexure-R1 dated 21.07.2024 has been already analyzed by this Court herein above. In addition to the same, two remand applications were filed in this case on 15.07.2024 and 18.07.2024 which is even prior to the arrest of the petitioner. Petitioner is arrested in the presence case on 21.07.2024 and on the said date, intimation notice - AnnexureR1 is served on him which contains all the basic facts of the case personal to him. The remand applications dated 15.07.2024 and 18.07.2024 were filed after the petitioner was produced under body warrant in the present case and his police custody was sought. It is relevant to take note that on 18.07.2024 when the second remand application was filed before the jurisdictional court, petitioner was represented by an advocate and it is not his case that the remand application was not served on him on the said date.
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
Court in Pankaj Bansal's case and Prabir Purkayastha's case supra, and no legal infirmity can be found in the arrest of the petitioner.
"16. In view of the aforestated proposition of law propounded by the Constitution Benches, there remains no shadow of doubt that the law laid down by the threeJudge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary that Section 19(1) PMLA has a reasonable nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the PML Act and that the said provision is also compliant with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, any observation made or any finding recorded by the Division Bench of lesser number of Judges contrary to the said ratio laid down in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary would be not in consonance with the jurisprudential wisdom expounded by the Constitution Benches in cases referred above. The three-Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary having already examined in detail the constitutional validity of Section 19 PMLA on the touchstone of Article 22(1) and upheld the same, it holds the field as on the date.
informed about the grounds of his arrest, that is sufficient compliance with mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It is also observed that the arrested person before being produced before the Special Court within twenty-four hours or for that purposes of remand on each occasion, the Court is free to look into the relevant records made available by the authority about the involvement of the arrested person in the offence of money-laundering. Therefore, in our opinion the person arrested, if he is informed or made aware orally about the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest and is furnished a written communication about the grounds of arrest as soon as may be i.e. as early as possible and within reasonably convenient and requisite time of twenty-four hours of his arrest, that would be sufficient compliance of not only Section 19 PMLA but also of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India."
the case. In Ram Kishor Arora's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if the person arrested is informed or made aware orally about the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest and is furnished a written communication
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
about the grounds of arrest as soon as may be, that would be sufficient compliance of the requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Such compliance is found in the present case.
NC: 2024:KHC:48833 CRL.P No. 9537 of 2024
am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail at this stage cannot be entertained. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE
KK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether failure to serve grounds of arrest in writing at the time of arrest vitiated the petitioner's arrest and remand under Section 50(1) Cr.PC and Article 22(1).
Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a KCOCA case involving organised property fraud.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pankaj Bansal v Union of IndiaRelied on¶9
(2024)7 SCC 576 · Who else cites this
Prabir Purkayastha v State (NCT of Delhi)Relied on¶10
2024 SCC OnLine SC 934 · Who else cites this
Arvind Kejriwal v Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶12
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1703 · Who else cites this
Syed Sajjad Ali v The Senior Intelligence OfficerReferred¶13
CRL.P.No.5435/2024 disposed of on 05.07.2024
Mahesh Pandurang Naik v State of Maharashtra & Anr.Referred¶14
W.P.(ST) No.13835/2024 disposed of on 18.07.2024
Hem Prabhakar Shah v State of MaharashtraReferred¶14
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3006 · Who else cites this
Rajashree Bhausaheb Vikhe Patil v State of MaharashtraReferred¶14
W.P.No.3476/2024 disposed of on 22.08.2024
Sachin Mahipati Nimbalkar v State of Maharashtra through Karad City Police StationReferred¶14
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3493 · Who else cites this
Manulla M. Kanchwala v State of MaharashtraReferred¶14
Criminal Writ Petition No.3276/2024 disposed of on 14.08.2024
KVR Vidyasagar v State of Andhra Pradesh & OthersReferred¶16
2024 SCC OnLine AP 4844 · Who else cites this
Tusharbhai Ranjinikanthbhai Shah v State of GujaratDistinguished¶25
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1897 · Who else cites this
Ram Kishor Arora v Directorate of EnforcementApplied¶27
(2024)7 SCC 599 · Who else cites this
Tamboli Ramanlol Motilal v Ghanchi Chimanlal Keshavlal (Dead) by Lrs. and AnotherReferred
1993 Supp (1) SCC 295 · Who else cites this
V.Dhanasingu & Others v Jayachandran @ Jayasankar & AnotherReferred
S.A.No.536/2012 and M.P.No.1/2012
Arvind Kejriwal v Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2550 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 5 enactments
John Moses D @ Madan Kumar
State of Karnataka by Bharati Nagar P.S., now investigation by CID Special Enquiry Wing
S Vishwajith Shetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
