Article 22(1) compliance and valid remand custody defeated the arrest challenge and habeas corpus petition.

Article 22(1) is satisfied if the grounds of arrest are effectively communicated as soon as may be, and simultaneous written service at the moment of arrest is not mandatory. On the facts, the arrest record showed acknowledgment of the grounds, and the next-day remand application set out the factual basis and was served on the petitioner, so the arrest under the PMLA was not illegal on this ground. Habeas corpus was also unavailable because the petitioner was already in custody under reasoned remand orders passed by a competent court after application of mind; any earlier defect was cured by the intervening valid judicial custody, and no relief could be granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arrest under section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was illegal for want of proper communication of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether a writ of habeas corpus was maintainable after the petitioner had been remanded to ED custody and thereafter to judicial custody by orders of the competent court.

Issue (i): Whether the arrest under section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was illegal for want of proper communication of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The requirement under Article 22(1) is that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as may be, so that he can understand the accusation and effectively exercise his right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner. The Court held that this obligation does not necessarily require simultaneous written service of the grounds at the moment of arrest. On the facts, the petitioner had endorsed the arrest record as having read the grounds, and the remand application filed the next day set out the factual basis of arrest in detail and was served on the petitioner. The Court rejected the contention that the arrest was vitiated merely because the grounds were not separately served in writing at the time of arrest.

Conclusion: The arrest was not illegal on this ground and there was sufficient compliance with Article 22(1).

Issue (ii): Whether a writ of habeas corpus was maintainable after the petitioner had been remanded to ED custody and thereafter to judicial custody by orders of the competent court.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled principle that, in habeas corpus proceedings, the legality of detention must be examined with reference to the existing detention when the Court considers the matter, and that an earlier defect does not entitle release if subsequent valid remand orders have intervened. It further held that where the remand orders are passed by a competent court after considering the material and are not shown to be mechanical or wholly without jurisdiction, the detention is cured for the purpose of habeas corpus. The remand orders in the present case were found to be reasoned and reflective of application of mind, and the petitioner's present custody was held to be lawful.

Conclusion: The writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable and no relief could be granted in view of the valid remand and continuing judicial custody.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the Court found lawful compliance with the arrest safeguards and held that the petitioner's custody, being supported by valid remand orders, could not be disturbed in habeas corpus jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: In arrest cases, Article 22(1) is satisfied if the grounds of arrest are effectively informed as soon as may be, and a habeas corpus petition will not succeed where the petitioner is in custody pursuant to valid remand orders passed by a competent court after application of mind.

---