Court upholds legality of arrest by Enforcement Directorate, dismisses habeas corpus petition

The court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the petitioner's arrest by the Enforcement Directorate was legal as he was informed of the grounds, complying with constitutional requirements. The court held that the remand orders were valid and not mechanical, reflecting due consideration. Additionally, the court ruled that a writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable as the petitioner was in judicial custody under valid orders. The court emphasized that these findings would not prejudice the ongoing proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the arrest.
2. Compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
3. Validity of the remand orders.
4. Maintainability of the writ of habeas corpus.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Arrest:
The petitioner argued that his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was illegal because he was not informed of the grounds of his arrest as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court observed that the petitioner was informed of the grounds of his arrest when he was allowed to read the grounds, which he acknowledged by writing "Read." The court held that this constituted sufficient compliance with the requirement to inform the arrestee of the grounds of arrest. The court also noted that the petitioner was further informed of the grounds of his arrest through the remand application presented to the Special Judge on the following day.

2. Compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India:
Article 22(1) mandates that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. The court held that the petitioner was adequately informed of the grounds of his arrest both at the time of arrest and through the remand application. The court emphasized that the purpose of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest is to enable him to consult a legal practitioner and prepare his defense. The court found that the petitioner was able to exercise these rights, as evidenced by his legal representation and the subsequent legal proceedings.

3. Validity of the Remand Orders:
The petitioner contended that the remand orders passed by the Special Judge were mechanical and without application of mind. The court examined the orders and found that they were detailed and reflected due consideration of the submissions made by both the ED and the petitioner. The court noted that the Special Judge had applied his mind to the materials presented and provided reasons for granting the remand. The court concluded that the remand orders were not mechanical and were passed with due application of mind.

4. Maintainability of the Writ of Habeas Corpus:
The court held that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable when a person is in judicial custody pursuant to an order of a competent court, which is not prima facie without jurisdiction or wholly illegal. The court observed that the petitioner was in judicial custody under valid remand orders passed by the Special Judge. The court also noted that the petitioner had the statutory remedy of seeking regular bail from the competent court. The court concluded that there was no illegality in the petitioner's judicial custody and dismissed the writ petition.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and dismissed the writ petition. The court held that the petitioner was duly informed of the grounds of his arrest, the remand orders were valid and passed with due application of mind, and the writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable in the circumstances of the case. The court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the case of either party in the ongoing proceedings under the PMLA.

---