9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt shall form the secondary opinion on the validity of the exercise undertaken for compliance of Section 19 (1) of the PMLA when the arrest is made. Power to arrest under Section 19 (1) of the PMLA is not for the purpose of investigation. Arrest can and should wait and the power in terms of Section 19(1) of the PMLA can be exercised only when the material with the designated officers enables them to form an opinion by recording reasons in writing that the arrestee is guilty. Section 19(1) thus, does not permit arrest only to conduct investigation. Conditions of Section 19(1) have to be satisfied Clauses A, C, D and E to Section 41(1)(ii) of the Cr.P.C., apart from other considerations may be relevant. In order to prove the involvement of the petitioner in illegal sand mining business, at least some material was required to be produced to the effect that the petitioner deposited money as per his share for winning the bid. No such evidence, unfortunately, was produced by the ED in course of its investigation. There is absolutely no ambiguity with regard to the scope of Section 50. The only question is as to whether the statement of the petitioner involved him in an offence of mon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iv) This Hon'ble Court may award the cost of litigation and suitable compensation to the Petitioner for the loss and damages caused on account of the illegal and arbitrary actions of the Respondent(s) Authorities. (v) To grant any other relief or reliefs which the Petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The salient facts necessary for the adjudication of the instant writ petition are as follows: One M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited (hereinafter described as "M/s AMPL" for short) was granted settlement of all sand quarries (Ghats) for extraction of sand in the district of Aurangabad and Rohtas during the period between 1st January, 2015 and 31st of December, 2019. The said settlement was time to time extended after it was initially granted for five years till 30th of September, 2021 by four separate grants. However, M/s AMPL surrendered its settlement on 30th of April, 2021 w.e.f. 1st of May, 2021. Initial dispute arose between Mines and Geological Department, Government of Bihar and M/s AMPL over payment of royalty for the surrendered period and also with respect of M/s AMPL entitlement to sell sand which was stocked at K- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business of M/s AMPL. However, in course of investigation, the Petitioner was summoned to appear before the ED on 27th of October, 2023. The Petitioner informed the Investigating Officer of ED that at the relevant point of time he was out of the country. The Petitioner appeared before the ED on 25th of September, 2024 and furnished all required information claimed by the Investigating Officer under Annexure- A to the summon, dated 9th of September, 2024." 3. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that on 10th of November, 2023, the ED, after completion of investigation, submitted a complaint against M/s AMPL and its Directors, namely, Jag Narayan Singh and Satish Kumar Singh under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. 4. Though the Petitioner fully cooperated with the Investigating Officer, he was informed in the late hours of 27/28th of September, 2024 that the ED would arrest him in connection with the second ECIR. On 28th of September, 2024, the Respondents/ED filed an application seeking judicial custody of the Petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, PMLA, Patna. He was time to time remanded to the custody of the Enforcement Directorate or in other words jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rain, Mauza no.-00, Block-Dehri Thana Dalmia Nagar, District-Rohtas, Khata No-112, Khesra No-408 and license no. K-ROHTAS/14/2021 having address- Mauza - Makrain, Mauza no-00, Block- Dehri, Thana Dalmia Nagar, District- Rohtas, Khata No.-112, Khesra No.-408 has, been charged with section 411 and 420 of Indian Penal Code for Dishonestly receiving stolen property and Criminal Conspiracy respectively have been invoked which are scheduled under Part A, Paragraph 1 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) In the above mentioned FIR, it is alleged that during the inspection of both the above license holding places, only 6,00,000 cubic feet of sand was found. Whereas, there is 77,84,350 cubic feet of sand stored at both the above mentioned license holding places as per the report provided by P.M.U. (Project Management Unit). It is also alleged in the said FIR that Authorized Staff/Director of the license holder sold the sand stealthily without issuing prepaid E-Challans, thus causing loss to the tune of Rs. 24,42,67,900/- to the Bihar Government Exchequer. (iii) Therefore, it appears from the above that the 71,84,350 cubic feet of sand amounting to Rs. 24,42,67,900/- have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the Petitioner, huge financial transaction was found between the said company and M/s AMPL. The said money amounting to Rs. 1 Crore 34 Lakhs, approximately are transactions in non-interests bearing loans to M/s AMPL. It is also alleged by the ED that huge amount of money was transferred from bank account of Vinay Vinimay Private Limited to M/s AMPL. It is claimed by the ED that the said amount was transferred as loans to M/s AMPL but no supporting documents has been filed by the ED in support of his claim. 12. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has further pointed out that there are certain monetary transactions between M/s AMPL and M/s SGPL that reveal suspicious circumstances in respect of financial relationship between two companies. According the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner the above-mentioned financial transactions between two companies are briefly "reason to believe" that the petitioner is part of syndicate operating in Bihar in sand mining scam and thereby generating huge "proceeds of crime" through commission of offences under Sections 411 and 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC. It is further pointed out that the above stated fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehalf of the petitioner next refers to the provision contained in Section 19 of the said Act which speaks of power to arrest. Section 19 states as follows:- "Section 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 sub-section (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 the manner, as may be prescribed and such Adjudicating Authority shall keep such order and material for such period, as may be prescribed. (3) Every person arrested under sub-section (1) shall, within twenty four hours, be taken to a [Special Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court, the prosecution conceded that besides the alleged entries in the diaries and the loose sheets there was no other evidence it observed that the entries would not further the case of the prosecution. As regards the admissibility of the documents under Section 10 the High Court held that the materials collected during investigation did not raise a reasonable ground to believe that a conspiracy existed, far less, that the respondents were parties thereto and, therefore, these documents would not be admissible under Section 10 also. The High Court next took up the question as to whether those documents could be admitted under Section 17 and observed that the admissions, if any, therein could be used against the Jains only and not against Shri Advani and Shri Shukla. The High Court, however, observed that the production and proof of the documents by themselves would not furnish evidence of the truth of their contents and that during investigation CBI did not examine any witness or collect materials to prove the same. With the above findings and observations, the High Court arrived at the following conclusion: "In the present case there is no evidence against the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by him or done with his knowledge or consent. 23. This Section provides an exception to the rule, by laying down an overt act committed by one of the conspirators being sufficient to make it the act of all. But then, the opening words of Section made it abundantly clear that such concept of agency can be availed, only after the Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that they have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong. In other words, only when such reasonable ground exits, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention thereafter is relevant against the others, not only for the purpose of existence of the conspiracy but also for proving that the other person was a party to it. 24. It is urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that if the case of the prosecution is believed in its face value, there was conspiracy between M/s AMPL and M/s. SGPL. The Investigating Officer failed to collect any document either from M/s AMPL or M/s SGPL or its Directors in order to prove monetary transaction as a result of conspiracy to run sand mining illegally in the districts of Aurangabad and Rohtas. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 761] has dealt with the matter though at the stage of discharge when investigation had been completed but same is relevant for the purpose of decision of this case also. This Court has considered the entries in Jain Hawala diaries, notebooks and file containing loose sheets of papers not in the form of "books of accounts" and has held that such entries in loose papers/sheets are irrelevant and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, and that only where the entries are made in the books of accounts regularly kept, depending on the nature of occupation, that those are admissible." 26. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that implication of the accused in the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is in gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Since, the ECIR was equivalent to FIR, the ECIR contains the grounds of arrest, details of offence etc. and without the knowledge of ingredients of such a document, the ability of the accused to defend himself at the stage of bail could not be fully realized. It was urged that the same may also hamper the ability of the trial at latter stage. It is for this reason there were adequate s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. It may be noted that Section 45 PMLA enables the person arrested under Section 19 thereof to seek release on bail but it postulates that unless the twin conditions prescribed thereunder are satisfied, such a person would not be entitled to grant of bail. The twin conditions set out in the provision are that, firstly, the Court must be satisfied, after giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for release, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person is not guilty of the offence and, secondly, that he is 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 authorised 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 2002 Act. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-corporation of a witness in response to the summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA would not be enough to render him liable to be arrested under Section 19. 36. It was stated by the ED that the petitioner was evasive in providing relevant information. It was however not clarified as to why the petitioner's replies were categorized as evasive and that record is not placed before this Court for verification. Evasive reply by the petitioner as alleged by the ED cannot be a ground for his arrest. 37. The Assistant Director, ED, Patna Zonal Office, has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that as many as 24 FIRs have been registered in different Police Stations situated in the districts of Aurangabad and Rohtas in the State of Bihar against M/s AMPL, alleging illegal mining, transportation, storage and sale of huge quantity of sand causing revenue loss of Rs. 210,91,76,276/-. On the basis of the said complaints, police registered specific cases under penal provisions of Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2019 and scheduled offences under Sections 411, 420, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 2020 without generation of challan causing revenue loss to the Government exchequer. 40. It is further stated on behalf of the respondents that the information was shared under Section 66(2) of the PMLA with the Mining Department, Bihar with a copy to DGP, Bihar Police. On the basis of the said information, the Mining Department filed the complaint before the State Police and accordingly FIR No. 6137017240047 was registered by the police in Dehri Nagar Police Station on 8th of February, 2024 as well as Dehri Nagar P.S. Case No. 5125024240115 on 13th of February, 2024 against M/s AMPL for commission of offences under Sections 420 and 379 of the IPC. The said FIRs were however quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 7th of October, 2024. The investigation of the abovementioned cases revealed that illegal sale of sand by the various companies was mainly controlled by syndicate, of which the petitioner is a member who by investing funds in the company either through banking or non-banking channels became syndicate members and the profit generated from illegal sale of sand is nothing but proceeds of crime which were distributed among syndicate members. As there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmission of scheduled offence by them. During investigation of the cases, ED found complicity of the present petitioner and others allegedly on the basis of ledger book seized from the possession of one Radha Charan Sah and documents seized by the Income Tax Department during raid and therefore the accused were arrested. 43. It is further submitted by the learned ASG that incriminating materials against the accused were found from the statement of one Mithlesh Kumar and the documents mentioned above. The petitioner was interrogated for three consecutive days but he failed to clear away the circumstances collected against him and, therefore, he was arrested. 44. It is submitted by learned ASG that the statement of the present petitioner before the ED is prima facie admissible on the ground that such statement was made by him before his arrest. It is further submitted by the learned ASG that during 2015-2021, a sum of Rs. 21 Crore was deposited in cash in the account of the petitioner. Subsequently, a sum of Rs. 38 Lakh deposited in cash, in the ledger book maintained by Radha Charan Sah and monetary transaction between M/s AMPL and the petitioner as per petitioner's share in sand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e revealed that Shri Ajay Singh, Director of SG Projects Pvt Ltd is also a part of this syndicate with 10% of total share in the profit generated from the illegal sand mining and sale of sand by M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited. Further document seized by income tax department also corraborates involvement of syndicate members, amount paid to them against the dding amount and share received from the illegal sale of sand. Further, the analysis of bank accounts of Mis SG Projects Pvt Ltd reflects huge transactions with Mis Aditya Multicom Pvt Ltd. 10. During the course of statement u's 50 of the PMLA, 2002 of Sh. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Director of Broadson Commodities Pvt Ltd (the company is one of the members with 60.9% share of syndicate), revealed that there is a Syndicate behind the illegal sand mining and sale of sand and named Sh Ajay Singh, Director of SG Projects Pvt Ltd as one of the members of syndicate with 10% share in the illegal profits. 11. Further, analysis of the documents procured from Income Tax Department, Patna u/s 54 of PMLA, 2002 revealed that on 28.07.2020, Rs 39,00,000/- were transferred from PNB Dehri account of Aditya Multicom Pvt Ltd to SG Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts Pvt Ltd through its director Shri Ajay Singh is involved in illegal sand mining business and also a part of the syndicate which is involved in illegal mining and its sale, thereby generating huge proceeds of crime through commission of offences u/s 120B, 411, 420 of IPC, 1860 which are scheduled offences under the PMLA, 2002. Further the said proceeds of crime are subsequently being layered and laundered through various entities/individuals. Thus, Ajay Singh is found to be involved in the activities related with the scheduled offence hence is guilty of the offence of the money laundering. 20. Shri Jag Ajay Singh has been non cooperative during the investigation by resorting to withholding of relevant information which are in his exclusive knowledge and has shifted onus on others. He has thereby made attempts to misguide and frustrate the investigation proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002." 49. On the question as to whether statement of a coaccused can be used against another to implicate him in a case under the PMLA, the learned ASG refers to Section 50 of the PMLA. Section 50 runs thus:- "50. Powers of authorities regarding summons, production o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs connected therewith and incidental thereto. As held by the Three- Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal (supra), the PMLA is a self- contained Code and the dispensations envisaged thereunder, must prevail in terms of Section 71 thereof, which predicates that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force, which includes provisions of the Cr.P.C. The Section 65 of the Act predicates that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the PMLA in respect of arrest, search and seizure, attachment, confiscation, investigation, prosecution and all other proceedings under the Act. It is pertinent to note that Section 4(2) of the Code states that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Further, Section 5 of the Code states that nothing contain in the Code shall, in absence of spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... must be remembered that the summon is issued by the Authority under Section 50 in connection with the inquiry regarding proceeds of crime which may have been attached and pending adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority. In respect of such action, the designated officials have been empowered to summon any person for collection of information and evidence to be presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is not necessarily for initiating a prosecution against the noticee as such. The power entrusted to the designated officials under this Act, though couched as investigation in real sense, is to undertake inquiry to ascertain relevant facts to facilitate initiation of or pursuing with an action regarding proceeds of crime, if the situation so warrants and for being presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is a different matter that the information and evidence so collated during the inquiry made, may disclose commission of offence of money-laundering and the involvement of the person, who has been summoned for making disclosures pursuant to the summons issued by the Authority. At this stage, there would be no formal document indicative of likelihood of involvement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required by virtue of sub- section (3) of Section 50. At the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, the same being not "testimonial compulsion". At the stage of recording of statement of a person for the purpose of inquiring into the relevant facts in connection with the property being proceeds of crime, is not an investigation for prosecution as such. The summons can be issued even to witnesses in the inquiry so conducted by the authorized officers. The consequences of Article 20(3) of the Constitution or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come into play only if the involvement of such person (noticee) is revealed and his or her statements is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official. In our opinion, the learned counsels for the appellants have sought to reagitate the issues which have already been settled in Vijay Madanlal." 53. Referring to another decision in Anoop Bartaria & etc. v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 477. It is submitted by the learned ASG that the power of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 CrPC. That coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the appellant. 57. Thus, the learned ASG concludes that the ED arrested the accused, while performing his mandatory duty regarding the reasons. The said exercise has to be followed by way of an information being served on the arrestee of the grounds of arrest. The sufficient materials have been collected by the Investigating Officer in support to his involvement in the offence of sand scam operating in the State of Bihar by forming a syndicate. Under such circumstances, there is no reason to allow the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner. 58. Though it has not been argued in great detail abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aph in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) read: "16(liii). ….. Secondly, there must be material in possession with the authority before the power of arrest can be exercised as opposed to CrPC which gives the power of arrest to any police officer and the officer can arrest any person merely on the basis of a complaint, credible information or reasonable suspicion against such person. Thirdly, there should be reason to believe that the person being arrested is guilty of the offence punishable under the PMLA in contrast to the provision in CrPC, which mainly requires reasonable apprehension/suspicion of commission of offence. Also, such reasons to believe must be reduced in writing. Fifthly, as per the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1), the person arrested is required to be informed of the grounds of his arrest. It is submitted that the argument of the other side that the accused or arrested persons are not even informed of the case against them, is contrary to the plain language of the Act, as the Act itself mandates that the person arrested is to be informed of the ground of his arrest……. XX XX XX 16(lix). Reliance is then placed on the decision of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f. Belief is beyond speculation or doubt, and the threshold of belief "conveys conviction founded on evidence regarding existence of a fact or doing of an act". Given that the power of arrest is drastic and violates Article 21 of the Constitution, we must give meaningful, true and full play to the legislative intent." 62. Thus, it is now established that the term "reason to believe" cannot be equated with the term reasonable complaint or credible information or reasonable suspicion contained in Section 41 (1) (B) of the Cr.P.C. "Reason to believe" is the tangible evidence or material which constitutes sufficient cause to believe existence of certain facts. This reason to believe goes to the root of the power of arrest. The subjective opinion of Arresting Officer is based upon fair and objective consideration of material as available with him on the date of arrest. On the basis of reason to believe, the Court shall form the secondary opinion on the validity of the exercise undertaken for compliance of Section 19 (1) of the PMLA when the arrest is made. 63. Coming to the instant case, it is found from Page No. 88 of the writ petition that the petitioner was supplied with the state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one of the dummy entities wins the bid, initial royalty payments are made by pulling money from different persons in the accounts of the bid winning entity. Further the actual sand mining generated from illegal sand mining are divided among the syndicate members. (g) It is also learnt that the petitioner is also a part of the syndicate with 10 per cent share in the profit generated from the illegal sand mining and sale of sand by M/s AMPL. The documents seized from the I.T. Department also corroborates involvement of syndicate members, amount paid them against the biding amount and share received from the illegal sale of sand. (h) One Mithlesh Kumar, Director of Broadson Commodities Private Limited having 60.9 per cent share of syndicate, revealed that there is a syndicate behind the illegal sand mining and sale of sand, and named the petitioner as one of the members of the syndicate, having 10 per cent share in the illegal profits. The ledger account book seized from Radha Charan Sah and the statement of Mithlesh Kumar revealed that the transactions with M/s SGPL were against sale of sand. (i) It is also learnt that Vinay Vinimay Private Limited and Associate Company of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns were made against M/s AMPL. 69. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the case on the basis of a statement purportedly made by one Mithlesh Kumar who alleged the involvement of the petitioner as a member of the syndicate. Secondly, a ledger book was recovered mentioning the accounts of syndicate members from the possession of one Radha Charan Sah, Director of Broadson Commodities Private Limited. Thirdly, some documents seized by Income Tax Department showing transfer of Rs. 39 lakhs on 20th of July, 2020 from the bank account of M/s AMPL to the bank account of M/s SGPL. Similarly, on 19th of March, 2020, a sum of Rs. 1 Crore was transferred from M/s AMPL to M/s SGPL against cash deposit of Rs. 1 Crore. The ED held that those monetary transactions between M/s AMPL and M/s SGPL establishes their involvement in illegal sand mining business. 70. The ED did not take into consideration the statement of Jag Narayan Singh, one of the Directors of M/s AMPL that he had a long family and business relationship with the petitioner and entire transaction between the petitioner and M/s AMPL was friendly transaction by way of loan. The said money is not proceeds of crime and there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39 of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), reported in (2023) 12 SCC 1, has observed hereunder:- "338. In the context of the 2002 Act, it must be remembered that the summons is issued by the authority under Section 50 in connection with the inquiry regarding proceeds of crime which may have been attached and pending adjudication before the adjudicating authority. In respect of such action, the designated officials have been empowered to summon any person for collection of information and evidence to be presented before the adjudicating authority. It is not necessarily for initiating a prosecution against the noticee as such. The power entrusted to the designated officials under this Act, though couched as investigation in real sense, is to undertake inquiry to ascertain relevant facts to facilitate initiation of or pursuing with an action regarding proceeds of crime, if the situation so warrants and for being presented before the adjudicating authority. It is a different matter that the information and evidence so collated during the inquiry made, may disclose commission of offence of money laundering and the involvement of the person, who has been summoned for making disclosures pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts filed by the petitioner, Annexure P8 series shows payment and receipt of money including an amount of Rs. 39 Lakhs which was claimed to be projected as tainted money by the ED. The ED has failed to establish that it has reason to believe that petitioner is involved in concealment, or possession, or acquisition, or use, or projecting as untainted property or claiming as untainted property, any money obtained by M/s AMPL through illegal sand mining business. 79. Thus, the statement containing "reason to believe" delivered by ED to petitioner does not contain satisfactory material to hold that the petitioner is guilty of offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. 80. In view of the above discussions, petitioner's arrest, dated 20th of September of 2024, is illegal and in violation of the safeguards contained in Section 19(1) of the PMLA. 81. It is needless to say that any illegal detention is violative of right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 82. As a result, the instant writ petition is allowed. 83. The petitioner be released from the judicial custody of the learned Special Judge, (PMLA), Patna, forthwith, on his executing a bon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
