Police custody cannot rest on stale warrants after complaint filing when arrest is not lawfully made under statutory safeguards.

Where a prosecution complaint had already been filed and summons issued, unexecuted earlier non-bailable warrants could not be used to justify a fresh arrest and police custody request when the accused was not shown as an absconder. The Court held that such a course was inconsistent with the requirement of a just, fair and reasonable procedure, and that the arrest was not a lawful arrest under the governing statutory safeguards. On those facts, the Special Court was right to refuse police remand, and that refusal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the investigating agency could seek police custody of the accused after filing of the prosecution complaint and issuance of summons, on the basis of earlier unexecuted non-bailable warrants; (ii) Whether the Special Court rightly refused police remand and treated the arrest as unjustified in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the investigating agency could seek police custody of the accused after filing of the prosecution complaint and issuance of summons, on the basis of earlier unexecuted non-bailable warrants?

Analysis: The complaint had already been filed and cognizance taken, while the accused was not shown as an absconder in the complaint. The earlier non-bailable warrants had remained on the file of the investigating agency and were not returned to the Court when the complaint was filed. The Court distinguished authorities permitting police custody after subsequent arrest in continuing investigation, holding that those cases involved accused persons shown as absconders or warrants properly linked to the court process. In the present facts, the arrest was made on the strength of old warrants and not under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. That course was held inconsistent with the requirement that the procedure affecting liberty must be just, fair and reasonable.

Conclusion: The agency could not validly seek police custody on the basis adopted in the present case.

Issue (ii): Whether the Special Court rightly refused police remand and treated the arrest as unjustified in the facts of the case?

Analysis: The Court held that once summons had been issued after filing of the complaint, and the non-bailable warrants had not been duly returned or pursued before the Court, the accused could not be arrested and subjected to police custody in the manner attempted by the agency. The arrest was not treated as a lawful arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and therefore the remand request premised on such arrest could not succeed. The Special Court's refusal to grant police remand was held to be justified.

Conclusion: The Special Court's refusal of police remand was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned order failed, and the accused's custody was not disturbed on the basis of the disputed execution of the earlier warrants.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a prosecution complaint has been filed and the accused is not shown as an absconder, unexecuted earlier warrants cannot be used to justify a fresh arrest and police custody request unless the arrest is lawfully made in accordance with the governing statutory procedure and safeguards.

---