Supreme Court refers arrest memo dispute for review, renumbers petition for custody extension challenge.

The court found that the Directorate of Enforcement did not violate the law in the arrest of the petitioner's husband as he had endorsed the arrest memo indicating awareness of the grounds. However, due to conflicting views on the requirement to communicate grounds of arrest in writing, the matter was referred to a larger bench. The Supreme Court transferred the case for further review, aligning with existing legal precedent. The court declined to rule on the arrest's legality but renumbered the petition as a Criminal Revision Petition to address the challenge to the custody extension order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Allegation of non-compliance with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in the arrest of petitioner's husband.
2. Interpretation of the requirement to communicate grounds of arrest in writing.
3. Challenge of a decision before the Supreme Court.
4. Legal position based on previous judgments and pending matters.
5. Validity of the order extending custody of the petitioner's husband.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The petition seeks a writ of habeas corpus alleging non-compliance with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in the arrest of the petitioner's husband. Specifically, it is claimed that the husband was taken by the officers of the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) without being informed of the grounds of arrest as required by law.

Issue 2: The court reviewed the record presented by the DoE, which showed an endorsement by the petitioner's husband on the arrest memo indicating that he had been informed of the grounds of his arrest. However, a previous decision by the court highlighted the necessity of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing, diverging from a contrary view in another case. The matter was referred to a larger bench for consideration.

Issue 3: The decision challenged by the DoE was taken to the Supreme Court, which transferred the writ petition to itself for further examination. The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court for deliberation.

Issue 4: Given the legal landscape shaped by previous judgments and the pending matter before the Supreme Court, the court determined that the current legal position aligns with a specific judgment. Consequently, it was held that the DoE had not violated the law in this instance, leading the court to decline the prayer related to the arrest's legality.

Issue 5: The petition also contested the validity of an order extending the custody of the petitioner's husband. The court directed the renumbering of the petition as a Criminal Revision Petition to address this specific challenge and scheduled it for listing before the Roster Bench on a specified date for further examination.

---