Judicial review of PMLA arrest safeguards affirmed, with recorded reasons ordinarily to be disclosed and interim bail granted.

Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was treated as a power subject to mandatory safeguards: possession of relevant material, recording of reasons to believe in writing, and communication of the grounds of arrest. The Court stated that compliance with these preconditions is open to judicial review, and the arrestee is ordinarily entitled to be furnished the recorded reasons to believe, subject only to limited justified redaction. On the facts, the broader necessity of arrest was left for consideration by a larger Bench, and interim bail was granted pending that determination.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the validity of arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is open to judicial review and whether the arrestee is entitled to be furnished the recorded reasons to believe; (ii) whether the arrest in the facts of the case justified continued custody and interim relief pending consideration by a larger Bench.

Issue (i): Whether the validity of arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is open to judicial review and whether the arrestee is entitled to be furnished the recorded reasons to believe.

Analysis: Section 19 was treated as a power hedged by jurisdictional preconditions, namely possession of material, recording in writing of reasons to believe, and communication of the grounds of arrest. The Court held that these safeguards are designed to protect liberty and are not excluded from judicial scrutiny merely because the arrest occurs during investigation. The court/magistrate is required to examine whether the statutory conditions were satisfied, though the exercise is confined to judicial review and not a merits trial. On that basis, the recorded reasons to believe cannot be withheld from the arrestee as that would make the right to challenge the arrest illusory, subject to limited redaction justified on good cause.

Conclusion: The arrest under Section 19 is subject to judicial review, and the recorded reasons to believe must ordinarily be furnished to the arrestee.

Issue (ii): Whether the arrest in the facts of the case justified continued custody and interim relief pending consideration by a larger Bench.

Analysis: After holding that the wider question of need and necessity to arrest required consideration by a larger Bench, the Court directed interim release because liberty was at stake and the appellant had already undergone substantial incarceration. The matter was therefore referred for authoritative determination on the broader questions framed by the Court.

Conclusion: Interim bail was granted and the wider questions were referred to a larger Bench.

Final Conclusion: The Court preserved the challenge to the arrest, recognised judicial scrutiny over compliance with Section 19, and granted interim relief while referring the unresolved legal questions to a larger Bench.

Ratio Decidendi: The power of arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is conditioned by mandatory safeguards and remains open to judicial review on whether the recorded reasons to believe are founded on relevant material and are disclosed to the arrestee, subject to limited justified redaction.

---