Orally informing grounds of arrest to PMLA accused enough for arrests made before Pankaj Bansal verdict: Delhi HC

A single judge bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan in its January 8 order said the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the Pankaj Bansal judgement “making it mandatory for the arresting officer to communicate the grounds of writing, are prospective in nature”.

The observations came as the bench upheld the Enforcement Directorate (ED)’s arrest of Neeraj Singhal, the former managing director of Bhushan Steel, in June last year.

Justice Mahajan observed that at the time of Singhal’s arrest, oral communication of the grounds of arrest was in proper compliance with the provisions of Section 19(1) of the PMLA.

Section 19(1) states that if an officer of the agency as mentioned in the provision 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 the PMLA he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.

The bench also pointed to the SC’s ruling in Ram Kishor Arora vs Union of India pronounced last month. The Supreme Court had said that “non-furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till the date of pronouncement of judgment in Pankaj Bansal case could neither be held to be illegal nor the action of the concerned officer in not furnishing the same in writing could be faulted with”.

Justice Mahajan observed, “The remand application when juxtaposed with the ground of arrest reveals that the remand application virtually contains the grounds of arrest, therefore, in view of the law laid down in Moin Akhtar Qureshi the petitioner stood informed of Section 19(1) of the PMLA when he was produced before the learned Special Judge within twenty-four hours of his arrest by the ED for seeking remand”.

“In light of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that the arrest of the petitioner is illegal. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the CRLMC 4376/2023 as well as BAIL APPLN 2356/2023, deserve to be dismissed and, are accordingly dismissed,” Justice Mahajan said.

Singhal had approached the HC challenging his arrest and had also moved a bail plea. He claimed that he was only provided with the “arrest memo” and the panchnama records that Singhal was neither shown the “grounds of arrest” nor the arrest order.

He said that a conjoint reading of the arrest memo, arrest order, panchanama, and remand applications dated June 10, 2023, and June 20, 2023, and the orders passed by the Special Judge (PMLA) led to an irresistible conclusion that the ‘ground of arrest’ and ‘arrest order’ were neither shown nor provided to him and, therefore, the arrest dated June 9, 2023, violated Section 19 of PMLA.

On its part, the ED argued that the grounds of arrest were provided and the same bears Singhal’s signature as well as the time when his wife was informed of the arrest.

Curated For You

Ex-Punjab IPS officer IG Amar Singh Chahal shoots himself after being duped in Rs 8.10 crore cyber fraud

Dhurandhar Box Office Collection Day 18 Update: Ranveer Singh film eyes Rs 600 crore club in India

Kerala SIR 2026 Voter List: How to Check Your name online, step-by-step guide