https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417812 Punjab and Haryana HC held that the Supreme Court ruling in Anupam J. Kulkarni had to be read in its factual setting and did not bar scrutiny of a refusal to grant further ED custody where the accused was initially remanded to ED custody, not first to judicial custody. The Court held that supervisory jurisdiction could still test the legality of the remand order, and that such interference would relate back to the date of the impugned order. On the facts, repeated opportunities for interrogation had already been given, the record did not show necessity for further custodial interrogation, and the remand request was perfunctory; the refusal of further custody was therefore upheld. en-us Tue, 14 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Feb 2022 08:44:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417812 Punjab and Haryana HC held that the Supreme Court ruling in Anupam J. Kulkarni had to be read in its factual setting and did not bar scrutiny of a refusal to grant further ED custody where the accused was initially remanded to ED custody, not first to judicial custody. The Court held that supervisory jurisdiction could still test the legality of the remand order, and that such interference would relate back to the date of the impugned order. On the facts, repeated opportunities for interrogation had already been given, the record did not show necessity for further custodial interrogation, and the remand request was perfunctory; the refusal of further custody was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 14 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417812