9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of arrest were being furnished. After considering the effect of section 19(1) (2) of PMLA and coming to the conclusion that it was incumbent upon the authorities to record the reasons for arrest in writing as per section 19(1), the Supreme Court held that there was no reason why the authorities could not provide the grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee. The Supreme Court had also reached the said conclusion keeping in view the power to initiate action under section 62 of PMLA against the officer concerned, in case of noncompliance of the provisions of section 19 of PMLA, while relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in V. Senthil Balaji vs. State Represented by Deputy Director and Ors [ 2023 (8) TMI 410 - SUPREME COURT ]. The Supreme Court also considered the effect of section 45 of PMLA to conclude that the rights of the arrestee to obtain bail under the stringent conditions would not be possible unless the arrestee has correct and complete information with respect to his grounds of arrest - Another issue which was considered by the Supreme Court in respect of Section 19(1) of PMLA was with regard to the sensitive material which may be contained in the grounds of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the individual right of life and personal liberty and freedom guaranteed under the Constitution of India are affected, it appears appropriate to also consider as to where the Constitutional Courts are to lean, in such circumstances - In the present case too, the offences which are alleged, fall within the ambit of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and directly impact the stability, integrity and sovereignty of the country and are of utmost importance since they would affect the national security. It appears as of now that the grounds of arrest were indeed conveyed to the petitioner, as soon as may be, after the arrest and as such, there does not appear to be any procedural infirmity or violation of the provisions of the Section 43B of the UAPA or the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and as such, the arrest are in accordance with law. Conclusion - Under the UAPA, oral communication of grounds of arrest is sufficient, and the Pankaj Bansal decision does not alter this requirement. This Court is of the considered opinion that the remand order is sustainable in law in the given circumstances - Petition dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is submitted that despite having searched the premises of the said Company and having sealed its office after seizure of all digital devices, no panchnama/seizure memo or backup of any of digital devices seized from the office of the Company was provided by the raiding party of Special Cell PS Lodhi Road at the conclusion of the search. It is further submitted that the Petitioner apprehends that the digital data retrieved during the course of the aforesaid raids may be tampered with so as to falsely implicate the Petitioner and the said company in the said FIR. x. It is further pertinent to note that the Petitioner herein was unlawfully arrested and has been in the custody of the officers of Special Cell, PS Lodhi Road from the morning of 03.10.2023 i.e., 6:30 AM onwards. The Petitioner was taken to the office of the said Company in the afternoon on 03.10.2023 by the officers of the Special Cell, PS Lodhi Road in their custody and thereafter the Petitioner was taken to Special Cell, PS Lodhi Road in the evening. The Petitioner was informed only around 7 PM that he has been arrested in the said FIR. However, no grounds of arrest were communicated to the Petitioner either orally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel to consult and make submissions on his behalf. xiii. Resultantly, at around 7 am, one of the Petitioner's family members was apprised of the Remand Proceedings on his mobile phone and he was requested to inform the Petitioner's Counsel about the same and request the Petitioner's Counsel to call the Investigating Officer ("IO"). The Petitioner's Counsel called the IO immediately and was informed of the Petitioner's Remand Proceedings. The Petitioner's counsel immediately objected to the said Remand Proceedings and requested that he may be permitted to reach the residence of the Ld. Special Judge to appear physically and take part in the Remand Proceedings after meeting and taking instructions from the Petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner's counsel was informed that the Remand Application would be forwarded to him on his phone and he can file his objections through WhatsApp. xiv. At around 7:07 PM an unsigned copy of the Remand Application was sent through WhatsApp messages to the Petitioner's counsel through the IO. It is pertinent to mention that the Remand Application neither mentions the time of the arrest nor ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ady deprived of the reasons for the arrest or allegations against him due to non-supply of grounds of arrest or said FIR, was denied his right to legal representation of his choice by the Respondent in a well thought manner, since the Petitioner's counsel who wished to appear physically to oppose the remand application, had no other option but to join the proceedings through a telephone call on such short notice. xix. That thereafter on 04.10.2023, the Petitioner was permitted to meet his counsel in the evening, pursuant to permission granted by Ld. Special Judge, and it was in this meeting that the Petitioner informed his counsel about the aforesaid events that transpired during the remand proceedings. xx. Till the time of filing of the instant Petition, the Petitioner has not been provided any grounds of arrest, either orally or in writing. However, the Petitioner's application for supply of copy of FIR has been allowed by the Ld. Special Judge vide order dated 05.10.2023, however, the Petitioner and his counsel are yet to receive the copy of the said FIR. It is pertinent to mention even this application of the Petitioner was opposed by the Respondent as is evident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not likely to commit any offence while on bail. To meet this requirement, it would be essential for the arrested person to be aware of the grounds on which the authorized officer arrested him/her under Section 19 and the basis for the officer's 'reason to believe' that he/she is guilty of an offence punishable under the Act of 2002. It is only if the arrested person has knowledge of these facts that he/she would be in a position to plead and prove before the Special Court that there are grounds to believe that he/she is not guilty of such offence, so as to avail the relief of bail. Therefore, communication of the grounds of arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19 of the Act of 2002, is meant to serve this higher purpose and must be given due importance. 33. We may also note that the language of Section 19 of the Act of 2002 puts it beyond doubt that the authorized officer has to record in writing the reasons for forming the belief that the person proposed to be arrested is guilty of an offence punishable under the Act of 2002. Section 19(2) requires the authorized officer to forward a copy of the arrest order along with the material in his p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the arrested person. Conveyance of this information is not only to apprise the arrested person of why he/she is being arrested but also to enable such person to seek legal counsel and, thereafter, present a case before the Court under Section 45 to seek release on bail, if he/she so chooses. In this regard, the grounds of arrest in V. Senthil Balaji (supra) are placed on record and we find that the same run into as many as six pages. The grounds of arrest recorded in the case on hand in relation to Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal have not been produced before this Court, but it was contended that they were produced at the time of remand. However, as already noted earlier, this did not serve the intended purpose. Further, in the event their grounds of arrest were equally voluminous, it would be well-nigh impossible for either Pankaj Bansal or Basant Bansal to record and remember all that they had read or heard being read out for future recall so as to avail legal remedies. More so, as a person who has just been arrested would not be in a calm and collected frame of mind and may be utterly incapable of remembering the contents of the grounds of arrest read by or read out to him/her. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks of arbitrary exercise of power. In effect, the arrest of the appellants and, in consequence, their remand to the custody of the ED and, thereafter, to judicial custody, cannot be sustained." 7. It would be apposite to extract Section 19(1) & (2) of the PMLA as also Section 43A & 43B of the UAPA and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which are as under - THE PREVENTION OF MONEY-LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 19. Power to arrest.-- (1) If the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession, reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under this Act, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest. (2) The Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer shall, immediately after arrest of such person under subsection (1), forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession, referred to in that sub-section, to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed envelope, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e grounds of such arrest. The words "as soon as maybe" have been taken note of by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 476, wherein it was categorically held that there is no period prescribed either in the Constitution or under the concerned detention law, within which the representation should be dealt with and the requirement according to the Supreme Court is that there should not be supine indifference, slackness or callous attitude in considering the representation. Though the Supreme Court was dealing with the interpretation of the words "as soon as maybe" occurring in clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution, however this Court is of the considered opinion that the same can also be applied to the present case. In that, the grounds of arrest have to be informed to the arrestee as soon as maybe but within a reasonable period from the time of arrest. The reason is not far to see, in that, the rights of the arrestee to be informed of such reasons is fundamental and intertwined with his right to life and personal liberty and freedom as the arrestee is likely to be detain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ractitioner of his choice is concerned, the same cannot be diluted for any reason whatsoever. For better appreciation of this right, it would be worth referring to section 41D of the Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein the right and entitlement of the arrestee/detainee to meet/consult an advocate of his choice has been stipulated. It is clear that the same is in consonance and resonates with the noble principles enshrined in Article 22 of the Constitution. In the considered opinion of this Court, every arrestee has an indelible right to consult and be defended by an advocate of his choice. iv. These sentiments are also reiterated in Part E of Delhi High Court Rules titled as "Instructions to Criminal Courts in Delhi [Vol. III of High Court Rules and Orders]" formulated by this Court (hereinafter referred to as "DHC Rules"), though at a different stage of the criminal proceedings, by incorporating the same in various rules relating to remand procedure, particularly, Rule 12 of Part B of Chapter 11 relating to "Remands to Police Custody". In fact, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to grant sufficient time for the counsel to appear and argue the matter, and in the interregnum, the Magistrate may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n comparison to section 43B of UAPA appears to be pari materia but for the words "material in his possession" and "recorded in writing". When compared to the language employed in section 43A of UAPA, except for the words reason to believe, the words "material in his possession" and "recorded in writing" appear to be deliberately omitted or not inserted by the legislature. It is trite that Courts cannot read into the statute, words which are deliberately or purposefully omitted or not inserted. Therefore, it does not appear to be correct that there is any mandate upon such officer in section 43A of UAPA to record in writing the reason for such belief on the basis of material in his possession. vi. In so far as the provisions of section 19(2) of PMLA is concerned, the Authorised Officer is required to, immediately after the arrest of a person under section 19(1), forward a copy of the order alongwith the material in his possession referred to sub-section (1), to the Adjudicating Authority, who shall keep such order and the material for such period as may be prescribed. Reading both the sections together, it is apparent that for the purposes of arrest, not only the Authorised Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 45 of PMLA to conclude that the rights of the arrestee to obtain bail under the stringent conditions would not be possible unless the arrestee has correct and complete information with respect to his grounds of arrest. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, the said communication of the grounds of arrest as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and section 19 of PMLA is meant to serve the higher purpose of availing bail after arrest. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, the communication in writing, of the grounds of arrest would serve the dual purpose of Constitutional and Statutory mandate. Another issue which was considered by the Supreme Court in respect of Section 19(1) of PMLA was with regard to the sensitive material which may be contained in the grounds of arrest. To that, the Supreme Court had observed that such information/sensitive portions could always be redacted, so as to safeguard the sanctity of the investigation. It was in the above peculiar facts and circumstances regarding disparate procedure conveying the grounds of arrest, that the Supreme Court mandated that the grounds of arrest ought to be conveyed in writing. It has also passed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd other economic resources, to prevent the entry into or the transit through their territory, and prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer of arms and ammunitions to the individuals or entities listed in the Schedule; AND WHEREAS the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 2 of the United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 (43 of 1947) has made the Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism (Implementation of Security Council Resolutions) Order, 2007; AND WHEREAS it is considered necessary to give effect to the said Resolutions and the Order and to make special provisions for the prevention of, and for coping with, terrorist activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.]" A plain reading of the Preamble alongwith aims and objects of the UAPA would make it apparent that the said Act was promulgated with a view to make powers available, for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India. In other words, it was felt necessary by the legislature, keeping in view the external and internal threats to the stability, sovereignty and integrity of this country, that an enactment has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re vs. Srikumar Agencies & Ors. reported in (2009) 1 SCC 469 as under: "5. "15. … Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes …" In this regard, the reference is also made to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Goan Real Estate and Constructions Limited & Another vs. Union Of India & Others reported in (2010) 5 SCC 388 as under: "31. It is well settled that an order of a court must be construed having regard to the text and cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thrust of the learned Senior Counsel while challenging the arrest of the petitioner, was that the grounds of arrest were not disclosed or conveyed to the petitioner simultaneous with the arrest itself. According to the learned Senior Counsel, it was incumbent upon the respondent to inform the ground of arrest, that too in writing at the time of arrest. Since the same was not complied with in letter and spirit, the arrest itself and the subsequent detention becomes illegal, unsustainable and wholly unconstitutional entitling the petitioner to be released forthwith. 17. For the aforesaid proposition, learned Senior Counsel completely relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra), to submit that the provisions of section 19(1) & (2) of PMLA are pari materia with the provisions of section 43B of UAPA and as such, the judgement in Pankaj Bansal (supra) having been rendered on 03.10.2023, the ratio laid down was not only squarely applicable but also binding upon the respondent. They submit that, admittedly, no written communication of grounds of arrest, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) were ever furnished to the petitioner. Learned Sen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said remand order was passed. It was incumbent upon the learned Special Judge, particularly in view of DHC Rules to take into consideration not only the contents of the Case Diary but also the arguments/objections on behalf of the arrestee before passing the order of remand. 19.5 That the insertion of the sentence "Copy of remand application sent through WhatsApp to counsel for accused persons" in the remand order between the two paragraphs appears to be an interpolation inserted to show as if the rules of remand have been complied with. However, the said interpolation displays complete arbitrariness bordering on judicial indiscipline. On that count too, learned Senior Counsel submits that the remand order ought to be set aside. 19.6 Though the remand application was purported to have contained the grounds of arrest, however the same are conspicuous by their absence. In any case, the remand application only contains, at best, grounds as to why the respondent requires remand of the petitioner and definitely not the grounds of arrest. 19.7 The order of remand is bereft of any reasons and does not even advert to the facts or allegations made in the FIR nor does it display any ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a whole. As such, when it comes to such offences, the Courts ought to deal with the same keeping in mind the avowed statements of objects and reasons of the said enactment. 21.7 According to learned SG, the provisions of section 43B of UAPA do not require or mandate supply of grounds of arrest in writing. Learned SG submitted that the words "as soon as may be" employed in the said section do not mandate that the said grounds of arrest are to be furnished in written simultaneous to the arrest itself. Even Article 22 of the Constitution of India does not prescribe or mandate any specific time or manner in which the grounds of arrest are to be communicated and as such, the contention of the petitioners on this point is untenable, both on statutory and constitutional provisions. 21.8 While referring to Para 35 & 36 of the reply, learned SG submits that the expression "as soon as may be" in the context of Article 22(5) has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in Abdulla Kunhi (supra) to mean that there is no period prescribed either under the Constitution or under the law so long as the legal requirement of informing is not dealt with supine indifference, slackness or callous a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Adjudicating Authority and its Period of Retention) Rules, 2005, to submit that the definition ascribed in clause (h) to the word 'order' means the order of arrest of the person and includes the grounds for such arrest under sub-section (1) of section 19 of PMLA. On that basis, learned SG submits that the requirement under section 19(1) & (2) of PMLA is distinct from the requirement under section 43B of UAPA. 21.12 That in the alternate, learned SG submits that the judgement of Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) was no doubt rendered on 03.10.2023, however was uploaded only on 04.10.2023 on the official website of the Supreme Court by which time, the petitioners were already arrested. He also submits that the respondent was not party to the Pankaj Bansal (supra) and as such, did not have knowledge of the ratio laid down therein. On that basis, he submits that as on the date of arrest, the judgements of the Division Benches of Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court were good law which enunciated that the grounds of arrest are to be informed to the arrestee at the earliest but there is no statutory requirement for the same to be in writing. In order to further the aforesa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a fact. 22.3 Learned SG also submits that even if the said remand order is held to be illegal, that would not ipso facto entitle the petitioner to be released, rather the petitioner would only be further detained in judicial custody. He further submitted that the petitioner would be entitled to be considered for release on bail thereafter. 23. On the basis of the above submissions, learned SG submits that no grounds for interference are made out and the petitions be dismissed. REBUTTAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 24. In rebuttal, Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel submits as under: 24.1 That the word "henceforth" need not necessarily always imply the decision to apply prospectively, but in given cases and in a fact situation, may apply retrospectively too. In that, according to learned Senior Counsel, if the word "henceforth" used in Pankaj Bansal (supra) was only to mean prospective application of the direction, then there was no requirement for the Supreme Court to make the same applicable to the case of Pankaj Bansal and ultimately release him on the ground that no grounds of arrest were communicated in writing to Bansal. On that basis, he submits that the law as d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various documents annexed therewith and considered the extensive arguments addressed by learned Senior Counsel as also the learned Solicitor General of India on behalf of the parties. 26. At the outset, it would be relevant to consider the facts as stated in the present petition by the petitioner. It is stated that the raid was conducted at the residential and official premises of the petitioner on 03.10.2023 at around 6-6:30 A.M. It is stated that the said raid continued throughout the day and it was only at 5:45 P.M. (as per Memo of Arrest) on 03.10.2023, that the petitioner was arrested. However, as per the averments in the petition, the petitioner himself states that he was informed of having been arrested at 7 P.M. on 03.10.2023. The petitioner also admits that he was briefly shown certain documents at the time of arrest, which were informed to be the Memo of Arrest and a Personal Search Memo, and was made to sign the same without giving him any opportunity to read the contents. 27. The petitioner also admits that he was permitted to meet his counsel briefly on 03.10.2023 at the Special Cell Office at Lodhi Road but was not permitted to sign any Vakalatnama nor was the couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate as to how the arrest itself was illegal, in that, the grounds of arrest were not informed or conveyed to him at the time of arrest. Whereas, it is the categoric stand of the respondent that not only the grounds of arrest were informed to the petitioner orally, the same was virtually conveyed in writing vide the Memo of Arrest. This fact has been asserted by the respondent in the counter affidavit signed and executed by an officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police. 32. This Court has also considered the contents of the remand application and it appears that the substratum of the allegations which would comprise the reasons for arrest is indeed contained in the said application. It is also beyond dispute that the said application in writing was furnished to the counsel for the petitioner during the remand proceedings and within 24 hours of his arrest. It is not disputed from the above admitted facts that the counsel for the petitioner had also participated in the remand proceedings and had opposed the same, though telephonically directly to the learned Special Judge. This is also specifically noted in the impugned remand order. 33. The contention regarding the remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is completely illegal and is in violation of the principles repeatedly laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court that a second FIR on same allegations/transaction is not maintainable in law." In case the argument of the petitioner about non-furnishing of grounds of arrest is taken to be true, then it is inexplicable as to how the petitioner had, on 04.10.2023, even before receiving the copy of the present FIR, gained the knowledge that the present FIR was in the nature of a second FIR registered on the basis of the same allegations and transactions which were leveled against him by the EOW/ECIR in the previous FIR regarding offences under PMLA. 36. That apart there is nothing placed on record to demonstrate that the timelines as averred in the petition are factually correct in nature or even to suggest otherwise. 37. That so far as the judgement in the case of in In Re Madhu Limaye (supra) is concerned, there are two distinguishing features which would make the ratio laid down therein inapplicable to the present case. Firstly, in the said case the grounds of arrest were never conveyed to the arrestees and the same was not controverted by the prosecution. Secondly, in In Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e offender. This jurisdiction has been called a jurisdiction of suspicion; but the compulsions of the very preservation of the values of freedom, or democratic society and of social order might compel a curtailment of individual liberty. "To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law" said Thomas Jefferson "would be to be lose the law itself, with life, liberty and all those who are enjoying with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means". This is, no doubt, the theoretical justification for the law enabling preventive detention." In the present case too, the offences which are alleged, fall within the ambit of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and directly impact the stability, integrity and sovereignty of the country and are of utmost importance since they would affect the national security. 39. Thus, after examining the entire issue in the right perspective, it appears as of now that the grounds of arrest were indeed conveyed to the petitioner, as soon as may be, after the arrest and as such, there does not appear to be any procedural infirmity or violation of the provisions of the Section 43B of the UAPA or the Article ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner has never been informed of the grounds for arrest as is mandated under Article 22 of the Constitution of India read with Section 43 - B (1) of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967. 18. On 04.10.2023, at about 7 AM, the counsel for co-accused, Mr. Prabir Purkayastha received a telephone call informing that the co-accused and the Petitioner had been produced before the Ld. Special Judge at her residence, and that the counsel should immediately come to the residence. No such information was provided to any of the family members of the Petitioner. 19. The counsel for the co-accused requested the Ld. Special Judge to defer the proceedings till 9 AM to enable the accused persons to be properly represented by counsel, as is their constitutional right under Article 22 of the Constitution. However, the said request was declined, the counsel for the coaccused was provided a copy of application for remand through Whatsapp and the Petitioner was remanded to police custody for a period of 7 days, i.e., till 10.10.2023. 20. It is also pertinent to note that the remand Order was passed at around 6 AM, whereas, the counsel for the co-accused, Mr. Prabir Purkayastha, was only i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the prosecuting agency. 43.4 It is also submitted that the remand application filed by the police, had neither mentioned the case of physical disability of the present petitioner nor mentions the role attributed to the present petitioner, and was more so, pertaining only to the co-arrestee Prabir Purkayastha. Learned counsel further argued that the said remand application does not even specify the reasons for seeking remand of the present petitioner, and therefore, suffers from inherent defect which goes to the root of the matter. 43.5 Learned counsel further argues that even during remand proceedings, the courtesy information call which was extended to the family member and Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, counsel for the co-arrestee, was not even made to the family member of the present petitioner or his counsel. Learned counsel submits that the present petitioner was therefore, deprived of the constitutional right of representation by a counsel of his own choice. 43.6 It is vehemently submitted that the remand order was passed at around 6 A.M., whereas the counsel for the coarrestee, Prabir Purkayastha, was only informed about the proceedings at about 7 A.M., which clearly show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd co-arrestee Prabir Purkayastha. 47. Firstly, there are no details to the averments made by the petitioner in his pleading as to how the petitioner has been able to lay his hands on either the impugned order of remand or the remand application filed by the respondent before the learned Special Judge, in case the version of the petitioner that there was zero representation on his behalf, at the time of arrest or remand proceedings is to be believed. 48. Secondly, the petition is completely silent as to what steps were taken by him or any of his family members to assail or raise objections against the arrest, or the order of remand till the present petition was filed. It is also not palatable that the petitioner had filed an application before the learned Special Judge seeking a copy of the FIR on 04. 10.2023, which is stated to have been taken up for consideration on 05. 10.2023, yet there is not even a whisper in the said application in respect of either the petitioner's alleged illegal arrest or alleged illegal remand order having been passed without any representation on his behalf. This creates a doubt in the mind of this Court as to whether the version of the petitioner is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification . This is because "the court knows law but not facts" . Keeping in view the observations so made and the law as laid down, while considering the lack of facts and material particulars in the present petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought in the present petition. 51. So far as the arguments of the petitioner being a differently abled person and suffering from physical disability to the extent of 59% and being covered under the provisions of The Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 is concerned, keeping in view the fact that serious offences affecting the stability, integrity, sovereignty and national security have been alleged against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to pass any favorable orders. 52. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
