Written grounds of arrest under PMLA must be furnished, and remand courts must verify compliance before authorising custody.

Under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, the arrested person must be furnished the written grounds of arrest, because Article 22(1) requires practical and effective notice of the basis for detention; merely reading out or allowing inspection is insufficient. The arrest and consequential custody were therefore held invalid. The Court also held that a remanding Magistrate must independently verify strict compliance with the statutory safeguards before authorising custody, and a mechanical remand cannot cure a constitutionally or statutorily infirm arrest. As that judicial scrutiny was absent, the remand orders were unsustainable and the impugned arrest and custody were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 and the consequential remand orders were valid when the authorized officer did not furnish the written grounds of arrest to the arrestees; (ii) whether the Court remanding a person arrested under Section 19 is duty-bound to verify strict compliance with the statutory safeguards and may refuse to validate an arrest made in breach of them.

Issue (i): whether arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 and the consequential remand orders were valid when the authorized officer did not furnish the written grounds of arrest to the arrestees.

Analysis: Section 19 requires the authorized officer to record reasons for belief in writing, inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, and forward the order and material to the Adjudicating Authority. The constitutional guarantee under Article 22(1) is meaningful only if the arrested person is enabled to know the basis of arrest in a practical and effective manner. Merely reading out or permitting reading of the grounds, without furnishing a written copy, does not adequately secure that right, especially where the grounds may be lengthy and the arrested person needs them to seek legal remedy and contest continued detention.

Conclusion: The arrest was not in compliance with Section 19(1) and Article 22(1), and the consequential custody could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): whether the Court remanding a person arrested under Section 19 is duty-bound to verify strict compliance with the statutory safeguards and may refuse to validate an arrest made in breach of them.

Analysis: The remanding Court must examine whether the preconditions for arrest under Section 19 have been satisfied and whether the arrest is lawful, because remand does not cure an arrest that is constitutionally or statutorily infirm. The Magistrate or remanding Court has an active obligation under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 19 of the Act, to satisfy itself about compliance with the statutory safeguards before authorising custody. A mechanical remand order, without recording such satisfaction, fails to discharge that duty.

Conclusion: The remand orders were unsustainable because the requisite judicial scrutiny of compliance with Section 19 was absent.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the impugned arrest and remand orders were set aside, and release was directed unless detention was otherwise required in some other case.

Ratio Decidendi: In an arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, the arrested person must be furnished the written grounds of arrest as a matter of course, and the remanding Court must independently verify compliance with the statutory safeguards before authorising custody.

---