Summary
The Court upheld refusal of habeas corpus relief after reasoned judicial remand under the PMLA and permitted Enforcement Directorate custody until 12 August 2023. Section 167 CrPC could support custody with that investigating agency despite its officers not being police officers. Hospitalisation and intervening court orders had prevented actual custody. The broader question whether police custody must fall within the first fifteen days was referred for larger-bench consideration.
Issues
- Whether habeas corpus lay against detention supported by reasoned remand orders.
- Whether PMLA arrest and Section 167 CrPC authorised Enforcement Directorate custody.
- Whether unavailable physical custody counted against the custody period, and whether the broader first-fifteen-days rule required reconsideration.
Provisions considered
- Section 19, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002Recorded reasons based on material, information about grounds, transmission to the Adjudicating Authority and timely court production were mandatory safeguards to be examined on remand. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41, 67, 68, 69, 81, 82, 83, 88)
- Sections 62 and 65, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002Accountability for non-compliant arrest and supplementary application of non-inconsistent criminal procedure supported judicial scrutiny and remand. (¶¶ 42, 43, 44, 45, 67, 68, 69, 88)
- Sections 4, 5 and 41A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Special PMLA arrest procedure prevailed; Section 41A notice requirements did not apply to arrest under that Act. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 43, 44, 45, 88)
- Section 167(1), (2) and (3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The remand scheme covered custody of authorised investigating agencies, required reasoned judicial scrutiny and involved actual custody. The general temporal limit question was referred to a larger Bench. (¶¶ 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 66, 67, 68, 69, 79, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91)
- Article 226, habeas corpus, Constitution of IndiaAn ordinary challenge to a reasoned remand required the prescribed higher-forum remedy; exceptional jurisdictional or mandatory-procedure failures were distinguished. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 81, 82, 88)
Held
- Habeas corpus is not a substitute for statutory challenge to a reasoned judicial remand showing application of mind. Exceptional total disregard of mandatory safeguards with non-application of mind was distinguished. Here the competent court had passed reasoned remand orders and no specific prayer challenging them had been pursued through the proper remedy. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 66, 81, 82, 88)
- Section 19 safeguards remain mandatory and the remand court must independently verify compliance; non-compliance benefits the arrestee and may attract Section 62. Compliance was established here. The separate Section 41A CrPC notice procedure did not apply to a PMLA arrest. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 67, 68, 82, 83, 88)
- Section 167 CrPC supplements PMLA arrest procedure, including judicial authorisation of custody with the Enforcement Directorate. Its phrase “such custody” is not confined to ordinary police custody, and an authorised officer’s distinct status did not remove the remand power or the arrested person’s procedural safeguards. (¶¶ 43, 44, 45, 53, 54, 55, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 83, 84, 85, 88)
- For this custody calculation, actual physical custody mattered. The Directorate had not obtained it while the appellant remained hospitalised under intervening judicial arrangements. The Court applied the principle that a court’s act should prejudice no party and permitted custody until 12 August 2023. (¶¶ 57, 60, 79, 86, 87, 88, 90)
- The Bench disagreed with restricting all police custody to the first fifteen days and expressed a broader reading, while referring the general question arising from Anupam J. Kulkarni and subsequent decisions for authoritative larger-bench determination. It expressly proceeded to decide this case on its distinct facts without awaiting that reference. (¶¶ 76, 77, 78, 79, 88, 91)
Result
Accused’s and wife’s appeals dismissed. Directorate’s appeals disposed of with custody permitted until 12 August 2023. Registry directed to place the broader Section 167(2) temporal-limit issue before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.