Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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       

Similar News