TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the arrest, detention and remand of the petitioner under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were legal and justified in the absence of his name in the FIR or charge-sheet, and whether non-cooperation in investigation by itself could justify arrest.
Analysis: The petition challenged the petitioner's arrest and remand under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The material recorded for arrest was examined against the requirement of a written reason to believe and the necessity to arrest. The grounds recorded for arrest and the reasons to believe were found to be identical, indicating lack of independent application of mind. The petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor charge-sheeted in the scheduled offence, and the respondent relied principally on alleged non-cooperation. The reasoning applied the principles from the Supreme Court decisions on arrest under the PMLA, particularly that arrest cannot rest on subjective satisfaction alone and that non-cooperation, by itself, is not a sufficient ground to justify custody. In the facts, the arrest was also viewed as having been made after a long delay without adequate justification.
Conclusion: The arrest, detention and remand were held to be prima facie illegal, and interim bail was granted to the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
