Court dismisses petition, upholding legal requirements for arrest notification.

The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the grounds of arrest were duly informed to the petitioner, complying with legal requirements under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The petitioner's fundamental rights were not found to be violated as he was informed of the grounds of arrest and had the opportunity to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether grounds of arrest need to be orally informed or given in writingRs.
2. Whether the petitioner's fundamental rights have been violated by not being informed/served the grounds of his arrest, thereby denying him the right to consult and be defended by his legal practitionerRs.
3. Whether the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated by subjecting him to an illegal arrest contrary to the procedure established by lawRs.
4. Whether the petitioner's arrest is contrary to Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), thereby violating his fundamental rights under Article 21 read with Article 14 of the Constitution of IndiaRs.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether grounds of arrest need to be orally informed or given in writingRs.
The court held that the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA has to be followed in letter and spirit. In this case, the grounds of arrest were duly given and notified to the petitioner, and he endorsed the same in writing under his signature. The core issue is of being "informed" and "as soon as." If it has been duly notified and brought to the notice at the time of arrest and further disclosed in detail in the remand application, it amounts to being duly informed and served.

Issue 2: Whether the petitioner's fundamental rights have been violated by not being informed/served the grounds of his arrest, thereby denying him the right to consult and be defended by his legal practitionerRs.
The court found no violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights. The petitioner was informed of the grounds of his arrest, and there is nothing on record to suggest that he was denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner.

Issue 3: Whether the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated by subjecting him to an illegal arrest contrary to the procedure established by lawRs.
The court held that there is nothing on record to suggest that the reason to believe, as required under Section 19(1) of the PMLA, was not recorded in writing. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner was arrested illegally.

Issue 4: Whether the petitioner's arrest is contrary to Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), thereby violating his fundamental rights under Article 21 read with Article 14 of the Constitution of IndiaRs.
The court found that the petitioner failed to show that his arrest was in violation of Section 19 of the PMLA.

Conclusion:
The petition along with pending applications was dismissed. The court emphasized that the grounds of arrest were duly informed to the petitioner, and there was sufficient compliance with the legal requirements under Section 19 of the PMLA and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

---