TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance

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