The Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered the release of Chandigarh Pharma firm directors arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The petitioners became arrested and also became remanded to judicial custody through an order made on 28.10.2023, by the Remandee Court concerned. Therefore, it has to be determined whether the arrest of the petitioners was terms of the relevant provisions embodied in Sections 17-A, 18(1), and, in Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The counsel for the ED submitted that they were not arrested on 27.10.2023 but were then merely detained for their interrogation being made at the headquarters of E.D. at Delhi. In consequence, he submits that when then rather no restraint became encumbered, upon the present petitioners, therefore it was submitted , that the date of the making of the formal arrest, of the present petitioners, through an arrest memo becoming drawn on 28.10.2023, rather becomes the relevant date, especially for making an adjudication, whether on the said date, there were any breach caused to the mandatory provisions.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepti Sharma observed that “The accused had accompanied, the E.D. officials, on 27.10.2023, thus in the respectively seized vehicle or in the vehicles belonging to the E.D. officials. Therefore, the said mode of the accused accompanying the E.D. officials, thus cannot be construed to be theirs either voluntarily or willingly accompanying them, to the E.D. headquarters, nor thereby the said manner of accompanying of the accused with the E.D. officials, can be termed to be in pursuance to theirs becoming summoned, thus for their interrogation being made, at the E.D. headquarters located at Delhi.”
“The petitioners be released from judicial custody, but subject to theirs furnishing personal, and, surety bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each, before the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, and, to his satisfaction, and, also subject to theirs not tampering with prosecution evidence, and, also theirs not influencing prosecution witnesses” the Court concluded.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
