LexDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT versus SUBHASH SHARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1409 : 2025 INSC 141 Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma (Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 2025) 21 January 2025 [Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the respondent's arrest was illegal and thus, granting him bail for an offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Headnotes† Bail – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – ss.45, 65 – Constitution of India – Art.22(2), 21 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.57 – Arrest vitiated if fundamental rights of the accused u/Arts.21 and 22 were violated – On facts, arrest of the respondent, if was illegal: Held: Yes – Respondent was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours from his arrest – Therefore, the arrest was illegal as a result of the violation of his fundamental rights u/Art.22(2) – Since there was a violation of Art.22(2), even his fundamental right to liberty guaranteed u/Art.21 was violated – Further, the requirement of Art.22(2) has been incorporated in s.57, CrPC – There is no in-consistency between the PMLA and s.57, Cr.P.C – By virtue of s.65 of the PMLA, s.57 of the Cr.P.C applies to the proceedings under the PMLA – Once it is found that the fundamental rights of the accused u/Arts.21 and 22 have been violated while arresting the accused or after the arrest, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail as the arrest in such cases is vitiated – It is the duty of every Court to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed u/Arts.21 and 22 – Therefore, when arrest is illegal or vitiated, bail cannot be denied on the grounds of non-fulfillment of twin tests u/s.45(1)(ii) of PMLA – No error in the impugned order. [Paras 6-9] * Author 1410 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports List of Acts Constitution of India; Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Articles 22(2), 21 of the Constitution of India; Bail; Illegal arrest; Not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours; Infringement of fundamental rights under Article 22(2); Right to liberty; Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 65 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 57 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Twin tests under clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2022 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in MCRC No. 5288 of 2022 Appearances for Parties Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Merusagar Samantaray, Arkaj Kumar, Ashok Panigrahi, B.K. Satija, Annam Venkatesh, Zoheb Hussain, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. Shivam Batra, Adv. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Abhay S Oka J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. The appellant is the Directorate of Enforcement. By the impugned order, the High Court has granted bail to the respondent in connection with an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the PMLA’). The High Court [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1411 Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma found that the respondent’s arrest was illegal, and on that ground, he was granted bail. 4. In paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment, the High Court has recorded factual findings which read thus: “From the documents available in the case diary and the aforesaid order, it is crystal clear that the applicant was detained and taken into custody at 18.00 hours (6 pm) on 04.03.2022 at IGI Airport, New Delhi when the Bureau of Immigration executed the LOC issued against the applicant and held him in custody on behalf of ED. It is also not in dispute that ED took physical custody of the applicant from the Bureau of Immigration at 11.00 hours (11 am) at IGI Airport on 05.03.2022 and brought him to Raipur where the ED in the afternoon on 06.03.2022 before the remand Court.” (underline supplied) 5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that pursuant to the Look Out Circular (for short, ‘the LOC’) issued against the respondent, he was detained at IGI Airport from 11.00 hours, on 5th March, 2022. But he was shown as arrested at 01.15 hours on 6th March, 2022 b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.