Power to Arrest under PMLA: Punjab & Haryana HC rejects Bail Citing Prospective Applicability of Pankaj Bansal Verdict [Read Order]
The Supreme Court ruled in Pankaj Bansal that just stating the reasons for an arrest does not satisfy the requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which address the authority to make an arrest.
PMLA – Punjab & Haryana HC – Haryana HC – Pankaj Bansal Verdict – Supreme Court’s – Section 19 – Article 22 – PMLA act – disclosure statements – Taxscan
PMLA – Punjab & Haryana HC – Haryana HC – Pankaj Bansal Verdict – Supreme Court’s – Section 19 – Article 22 – PMLA act – disclosure statements – Taxscan
The accused was arrested without providing written justification, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court denied him bail, citing the potential applicability of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Pankaj Bansal case, which held that simply reading out the grounds for arrest would not satisfy the requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which deal with the authority to make arrests.
According to the petitioner/accused Ravinder's bail plea, Anurag @ Arjun was detained on February 23, 2022, while the investigation was underway. In his disclosure statement, he acknowledged that he had committed the crime. According to his confessional testimony, the petitioner had struck Sumit's head with a Danda blow while firing at the deceased with his domestically made handgun, while Sandeep had struck Sumit's leg and fist.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course - Enroll Now
On February 24, 2022, the petitioner and Sandeep were taken into custody. They also made disclosure statements upon their arrest acknowledging that they had committed the alleged offense and that they were able to retrieve the motorcycle that had been used in the incident. They also acknowledged that Anurag was the one who fired the fatal shot and acknowledged that they had injured the deceased.
Read More: India Pushes Trade Reforms, Aims for Bilateral Agreement with U.S. by Fall 2025, Says FM
The Supreme Court ruled in Pankaj Bansal that just stating the reasons for an arrest does not satisfy the requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which address the authority to make an arrest.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course - Enroll Now
The single bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi has observed that the petitioner was arrested on 23.02.2022, much prior to 03.10.2023 i.e. the date on which the judgment in Pankaj Bansal was pronounced. Therefore, he cannot get any benefit of the law as laid down in the judgments.
The petitioner argued that at the time of his detention, he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest. The trial of the current case was not anticipated to be finished anytime soon, and the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail because he had been detained since February 23, 2022, and only two of the 29 prosecution witnesses had been questioned thus far. The current petition is dismissed because the court determined that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
