TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Habeas Corpus Petition: Detention Challenge, Medical Treatment Granted, Final Hearing Scheduled</h1> <h3>Megala Versus the State represented by Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai, The State represented by Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai</h3> Megala Versus the State represented by Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai, The State represented by Assistant Director, Directorate of ... Issues:Complaint about illegal detention of the petitioner's husband under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (P.M.L.A.) without proper notice and grounds for arrest.Judgment Details:The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition alleging the illegal detention of her husband due to three criminal cases pending against him. The detenu was arrested under P.M.L.A. for alleged money fraud in promising jobs in the Transport Department. The petitioner claimed violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as the detenu was not informed about the grounds of arrest or allowed legal representation.The Enforcement Directorate argued that the detenu was summoned earlier but challenged it, leading to the Supreme Court's decision to proceed with the case under P.M.L.A. Compliance with Section 19 of P.M.L.A. was emphasized, stating that the detenu's arrest was in accordance with the law.The Court considered precedents and concluded that a Habeas Corpus Petition could be entertained if the remand was illegal or lacked jurisdiction. The key questions for consideration were the factual correctness of non-compliance grounds and whether they amounted to absolute illegality.The Court entertained the Habeas Corpus Petition for further examination, directing the respondents to file a counter affidavit by a specified date. Additionally, due to the detenu's medical condition, a request was made to shift him to a private hospital for emergency bypass surgery. The Court allowed the detenu to be shifted to the chosen hospital for treatment, subject to examination by a panel of doctors appointed by the Enforcement Directorate.The final hearing for the main Habeas Corpus Petition was scheduled for a later date to address all remaining issues comprehensively.
TaxTMI 