Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from Criminal Writ Petition No. 3162 of 2023 filed by Naresh Goyal, a 74-year-old businessman in Arthur Road Jail, through his wife as next of kin, challenging his arrest and detention by the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with ECIR/MBZO-II/29/2023/378 registered on 10 May 2023 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner was arrested on 1 September 2023, and the Special Court under PMLA passed remand orders on 2 September 2023 and 11 September 2023. The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus for immediate release, quashing of the arrest memo and arrest order dated 1 September 2023, and quashing of remand applications and orders dated 2 and 11 September 2023. He alleged that the arrest was ex-facie illegal, without jurisdiction, grounds of arrest were not furnished in physical form, he was detained beyond 24 hours contrary to statutory mandate, and the remand orders were passed mechanically without application of mind, in violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. He also relied on a prior order dated 17 July 2023 by the High Court in Writ Petitions (Lodging) Nos. 17004/2023 and 17034/2023, which had stayed Canara Bank's classification of his account as fraud and held that precipitative steps by the investigating agency based on the RBI Master Circular would be stayed, arguing that the ECIR was toothless. The respondent Enforcement Directorate opposed maintainability, contending that the petitioner was in judicial custody by virtue of judicial orders, and on the date of return of rule, 12 October 2023, custody was lawful; that habeas corpus is maintainable only if custody is without authority of law or illegal; and that the petitioner could challenge remand orders before appropriate forum. The respondent also argued that the three issues of legality of arrest, non-supply of grounds, and detention beyond 24 hours were never raised before the remand courts, and that jurisdiction of ED and Special Judge was not challenged. The respondent relied on Ram Narayan Singh, Kanu Sanyal, Manubhai R.P., and V. Senthil Balaji, and contended that Pankaj Bansal, which mandates furnishing written grounds of arrest, applies prospectively from the word 'henceforth'. The High Court noted that the petition was placed before it only because of the habeas corpus prayer, and decided to first examine maintainability of that prayer; if not maintainable, the remaining prayers could not be entertained. The bench reserved judgment on 26 October 2023 and pronounced it on 7 November 2023.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Habeas Corpus - Maintainability - Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227 - The court considered whether a habeas corpus petition lies when the detenu is in judicial custody by judicial orders; respondent contended that custody is lawful and habeas corpus arises only if custody is without authority of law or illegal; court decided to examine maintainability as a preliminary issue before reaching merits (Paras 2-5, 8). B) Prevention of Money Laundering - Arrest and Grounds of Arrest - Section 19, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Petitioner alleged illegal arrest for not being served physical copy of grounds of arrest and detention beyond 24 hours, relying on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and V. Senthil Balaji v. State; respondent argued grounds were served and Pankaj Bansal applies prospectively from henceforth (Paras 3-4, 8). C) Constitutional Law - Personal Liberty - Articles 21, 22(1), Constitution of India - Petitioner submitted complete violation of constitutional safeguards, including production before competent court within 24 hours and duty of remand court to verify compliance; respondent countered that issues were not raised before remand courts and challenge falls outside habeas corpus (Paras 3-6). D) Criminal Procedure - Remand Orders - Application of Mind - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Petitioner alleged remand orders dated 2 and 11 September 2023 were passed mechanically without application of mind; respondent stated orders show application of mind and petitioner can challenge before appropriate forum; court noted that if principal prayer of habeas corpus is not maintainable, rest of prayers cannot be entertained (Paras 3-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable when the petitioner is in judicial custody pursuant to remand orders passed by the Special Court under the PMLA, and whether the arrest and remand orders are illegal due to non-supply of grounds of arrest, detention beyond 24 hours, and mechanical remand orders.
Law Points
- Writ of habeas corpus is maintainable only if custody is without authority of law or illegal
- judicial custody pursuant to remand orders may render habeas corpus not maintainable
- Article 21 and 22(1) violations can be grounds for habeas corpus if arrest ex-facie illegal
- Section 19 PMLA mandates grounds of arrest to be furnished
- remand orders require application of mind by competent court
- Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India mandates grounds of arrest from date of judgment henceforth
- V. Senthil Balaji v. State permits habeas corpus for violation of Section 19 PMLA safeguards
- Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi
- Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate Darjeeling
- Manubhai R.P. v. State of Gujarat establish law on habeas corpus and judicial custody
