Written grounds of arrest are mandatory under PMLA; objective satisfaction may justify arrest without a judicial finding of guilt.

Under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing and oral intimation alone is insufficient, ensuring meaningful notice of the basis of arrest. The phrase requiring a "reason to believe" does not demand a judicial or trial-like adjudication of guilt; the arresting officer must instead form an objective, material-based satisfaction that arrest is warranted. That satisfaction must be reflected in the written grounds of arrest with enough detail to disclose the basis for the belief, though no detailed adjudicatory order is required. The arrest was upheld as compliant with these requirements.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing and whether oral information is sufficient; (ii) Whether the expression "reason to believe that any person has been guilty of an offence" requires a preliminary adjudication of guilt by the arresting officer; (iii) Whether the arresting officer's objective satisfaction of guilt must be reduced to writing in the grounds of arrest.

Issue (i): Whether, under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing and whether oral information is sufficient.

Analysis: The statutory safeguard under Section 19 is intended to ensure that the arrested person is made aware of the basis of arrest in a meaningful manner. In the context of the stringent bail regime under the Act and the constitutional protection of personal liberty, mere oral intimation was held to be inadequate. The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing and a physical copy must be provided to the arrestee at the time of arrest or immediately thereafter.

Conclusion: The grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing, and oral information alone is not sufficient.

Issue (ii): Whether the expression "reason to believe that any person has been guilty of an offence" requires a preliminary adjudication of guilt by the arresting officer.

Analysis: The phrase was held to denote the arresting officer's objective satisfaction based on material in possession, not a judicial adjudication of guilt. The officer is not required to conduct a trial-like determination or finally pronounce guilt before arrest. The provision requires the officer to form a reasoned belief on the basis of collected material that arrest is warranted.

Conclusion: No preliminary adjudication of guilt is required; the test is objective satisfaction based on material in possession.

Issue (iii): Whether the arresting officer's objective satisfaction of guilt must be reduced to writing in the grounds of arrest.

Analysis: The reasons supporting arrest must be recorded in writing with sufficient detail to show the material linking the person to the offence and the basis for belief. However, a detailed adjudicatory order is not required. The written grounds must disclose the basis of the officer's satisfaction in a meaningful but concise form.

Conclusion: The objective satisfaction must be reflected in writing in the grounds of arrest, but no detailed adjudicatory order is necessary.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was found to be without merit, and the arrest was upheld as complying with the statutory requirements under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the arresting officer must form an objective, materially based written belief that the person is guilty and must furnish the grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee; however, the officer is not required to adjudicate guilt judicially before arrest.

---