2023 (11) TMI 374 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking release of petitioner (writ of habeas corpus) - passing of mechanical remand orders without application of mind - HELD THAT - In Ram Narayan Singh 1953 (3) TMI 38 - SUPREME COURT , the Apex Court has observed that a writ of habeas corpus is with respect to legality of detention at the time of return of rule and not to the date of institution and that if on the date of return i.e. the return of the rule, the detention is not illegal and is duly authorised by a Competent Magistrate by remand orders then the writ of habeas corpus will not lie. In Kanu Sanyal 1974 (2) TMI 85 - SUPREME COURT , the grounds raised by the petitioner therein were (i) that he was not informed of the grounds of arrest and (ii) the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case, and hence, the remand could not be granted. The Apex Court held that the earliest date with reference to which the legality of the detention can be challenged is the date of filing of the writ and not any other date; that on the date of filing of habeas corpus, the detention of the petitioner was in district jail and therefore, the legality of his earlier detention cannot be considered; and that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted when the person is jailed and is in judicial custody. In the present case, it cannot be said that the remand orders are absolutely mechanical or suffer from the vice of lack of jurisdiction, warranting our interference in this writ petition, which seeks a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner was arrested on 1st September 2023 and was served with the grounds of arrest on 1st September 2023. The petitioner has acknowledged receipt of the same. The law that held the field till Pankaj Bansal 2023 (10) TMI 175 - SUPREME COURT , with respect to serving the grounds of arrest was Chaggan Bhujbal 2016 (12) TMI 1014 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - the Apex Court vide judgment dated 3rd October 2023 in Pankaj Bansal, has used the words henceforth and has held that the decision of the Bombay High Court in Chaggan Bhujbal and Delhi High Court in Moin Qureshi 2017 (12) TMI 289 - DELHI HIGH COURT does not lay down the correct law. Thus, in the facts, having regard to the same, there is no merit in the petitioner s submission, that he ought to have been furnished with a physical copy of the grounds of arrest. The petitioner was not orally read out the grounds of arrest but was served a copy of the grounds of arrest which he acknowledged by signing thereon. The petition seeking writ of habeas corpus, in the facts, cannot be entertained and as such, the petition is dismissed - it is always open for the petitioner to avail of other statutory remedies, as permissible in law to him, vis-a-vis other prayers raised in this petition. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ of habeas corpus.
2. Legality of the arrest and remand orders.
3. Non-supply of grounds of arrest.
4. Detention beyond 24 hours.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the Writ of Habeas Corpus:
The court primarily addressed whether the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus was maintainable. It was noted that the petition was placed before the court solely due to prayer clause (a). The court emphasized that if the principal prayer (writ of habeas corpus) is not maintainable, the remaining prayers would not be entertained. The court cited several precedents, including *Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi* and *Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate Darjeeling*, which established that a writ of habeas corpus is concerned with the legality of detention at the time of return of the rule, not at the time of filing the petition. The court concluded that since the petitioner was in judicial custody by a competent court's order, the writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable.

2. Legality of the Arrest and Remand Orders:
The petitioner argued that the arrest was ex-facie illegal, without jurisdiction, and that the remand orders were passed mechanically without application of mind. The court noted that these issues were not raised during the first and second remand hearings. It was highlighted that the remand orders were detailed and reasoned, indicating that the competent court applied its mind. The court referred to *Manubhai R.P. v. State of Gujarat*, stating that a writ of habeas corpus is not to be entertained when a person is in judicial custody by a competent court's order unless the remand is absolutely illegal or lacks jurisdiction.

3. Non-Supply of Grounds of Arrest:
The petitioner contended that a physical copy of the grounds of arrest was not furnished, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in *Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India*. The court noted that the petitioner was served with the grounds of arrest, which he acknowledged by signing. The court referred to *Pankaj Bansal* and clarified that the requirement to furnish a written copy of the grounds of arrest "henceforth" does not apply retroactively. Therefore, the petitioner's claim regarding the non-supply of grounds of arrest was not upheld.

4. Detention Beyond 24 Hours:
The petitioner argued that he was detained beyond 24 hours without being produced before a competent court, violating statutory mandates. The court observed that this issue was not raised during the initial remand hearings. The court cited *V. Senthil Balaji v. State*, emphasizing that any plea of illegal arrest should be made before the jurisdictional magistrate since custody becomes judicial. The court concluded that the petitioner's detention was not illegal as he was in judicial custody by a competent court's order.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, stating that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner was in judicial custody by a competent court's order. The court clarified that the petitioner could avail of other statutory remedies for the remaining prayers in the petition. The observations made were restricted to the maintainability of the writ of habeas corpus.