Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

High Court Quashes Arrest and Remand in PMLA Case - Non-Compliance with Section 19 – Orders Immediate Release

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling on October 31, 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court nullified the arrest and subsequent remand of Roop Bansal, stating a clear violation of procedural norms under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The decision emphasized the necessity of adhering to the statutory mandate of providing written grounds for arrest, as per Section 19 of the PMLA.

The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Arun Palli and Justice Vikram Aggarwal, underscored the deficiency in the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) procedure, which led to the petitioner's illegal detention. "The arrest of the petitioner was also illegal and cannot be sustained," the bench declared, after finding that the ED failed to supply the written grounds of arrest to Bansal, an act that was deemed non-negotiable by the Court.

This case, which echoes the precedents set by the Supreme Court in similar matters, has brought into focus the critical nature of procedural compliance in arrests related to money laundering charges. The bench referred to the Supreme Court's observation, “any non-compliance with the mandate of Section 19 of the Act of 2002, would enure to the benefit of the person arrested.”

The Court’s decision was also influenced by the argument presented by Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the Senior Advocate representing the petitioner, who cited the recent Supreme Court judgment in Pankaj Bansal's case, which necessitated the furnishing of arrest grounds in writing.

The petitioner, who has been in custody following allegations of money laundering linked to transactions prior to the establishment of a predicate offense under PMLA, was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

The High Court’s stand is a significant reinforcement of the legal protection accorded to individuals against arbitrary arrest and detention, safeguarding personal liberty as enshrined in the Constitution of India.

Date of Decision: 31.10.2023

Roop Bansal VS Union of India and another       

Latest Legal News