PMLA summons stage protection: arrest power exists, but coercive steps were restrained to ensure cooperation with investigation.

At the summons stage under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court noted that the statutory power of arrest under Section 19 remains available, but held that an apprehension of arrest should not prevent the petitioner from appearing and responding to the summons. As the proceedings were still at a nascent stage, the Court declined to examine the merits and instead balanced investigation needs with interim protection. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the investigation, while the respondents were restrained from taking coercive steps or arresting the petitioner in connection with the ECIR, subject to liberty to seek vacation of that protection if non-cooperation occurred.

---

---

Issues: Whether, at the stage of issuance of summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the petitioner was entitled to protection from coercive steps and arrest, and whether the proceedings could be treated as premature.

Analysis: The proceedings were at a nascent stage and had progressed only to the issuance of summons. The Court noted that the statutory power of arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 exists, but found that an apprehension of arrest should not unnecessarily hinder the petitioner's ability to appear and respond to the summons. The Court declined to enter into the merits at that stage and considered it appropriate to secure cooperation with the investigation while preventing coercive action in the meantime.

Conclusion: The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondents and cooperate with the investigation, and the respondents were restrained from taking coercive steps or arresting the petitioner in connection with the ECIR, subject to liberty to seek vacation of the interim protection in case of non-cooperation.

---