TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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: (i) Whether, after confinement of the writ petition to the challenge against the order dated 09.06.2023, the petitioner could still agitate the legality of the arrest dated 07.06.2023. (ii) Whether the writ petition, in view of the confinement of prayer, had to be examined only on the propriety of the order dated 09.06.2023 on the alleged ground that the grounds of arrest were not supplied in writing. (iii) Whether any ground was made out for interference with the order dated 09.06.2023.
Issue (i): Whether, after confinement of the writ petition to the challenge against the order dated 09.06.2023, the petitioner could still agitate the legality of the arrest dated 07.06.2023.
Analysis: The prayer had been expressly confined in open court, the confinement was recorded by judicial order, and that order was neither recalled nor reviewed. The Court treated the recorded confinement as binding and held that writ proceedings must proceed on the basis of the pleaded and confined prayer. It declined to reopen the arrest challenge because doing so would disregard the operative confinement order.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner; the legality of the arrest could not be agitated.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition, in view of the confinement of prayer, had to be examined only on the propriety of the order dated 09.06.2023 on the alleged ground that the grounds of arrest were not supplied in writing.
Analysis: The Court distinguished arrest from remand. It held that the safeguards under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 operate at the stage of arrest, while remand is governed by the remand provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On the facts, the petitioner had signed the grounds of arrest on each page and had shown no contemporaneous grievance before the remand court. The Court further held that the remand challenge could not be converted into an indirect attack on arrest once the prayer had been confined.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner; the writ had to be considered only with respect to the remand order, and the arrest-based objection could not be used to invalidate it.
Issue (iii): Whether any ground was made out for interference with the order dated 09.06.2023.
Analysis: The Court examined the order dated 09.06.2023 as an order granting custody to the Enforcement Directorate for custodial interrogation after the earlier remand order had already placed the petitioner in judicial custody. It found no procedural illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order, and held that long custody, innocence-based assertions, and attack on the merits of the prosecution were irrelevant to the limited question of remand. The Court concluded that no case for interference had been established.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner; no interference was warranted with the order dated 09.06.2023.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was confined to a narrow remand challenge and failed on that limited examination, leaving the impugned custody-related order undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a writ petitioner has expressly confined the prayer and the confinement order remains operative, the Court will not enlarge the scope of adjudication beyond that confined prayer, and a remand order will not be interfered with in the absence of a demonstrable legal infirmity in the remand process itself.
TaxTMI 
