DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENTversusSUBHASH SHARMA

                 [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 by the appellant Enforcement Directorate
     and was produced before the Court of the learned Magistrate within
     24 hours from 1.15 hours on 6th March, 2022.
6.   This argument cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the LOC was issued at
     the instance of the appellant - Directorate of Enforcement. By executing
     the LOC, the Bureau of Immigration detained the respondent at IGI
     Airport from 4th March 2022 on behalf of the Appellant. The finding
     of fact recorded in paragraph 10 is that undisputedly, the physical
     custody of the respondent was taken over by the appellant from the
     Bureau of Immigration at 11.00 hours on 5th March, 2022. Thereafter,
     at 1.15 hours on 6th March 2022, an arrest memo was prepared by ED
     at Raipur. He was produced before the Court at 3 p.m. on 6th March,
     2024. The perusal of the arrest order(Annexure p-1) shows that the
     typed order was kept ready. The date and time of arrest were kept
     blank which appear to have been filled in by hand. Admittedly, the
     respondent was not produced before the nearest learned Magistrate
     within 24 hours from 11.00 a.m. on 5th March, 2022. Therefore, the
1412                                                         [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     arrest of the respondent is rendered completely illegal as a result
     of the violation of clause 2 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
     Thus, the continuation of the respondent in custody without producing
     him before the nearest Magistrate within the stipulated time of 24
     hours is completely illegal and it infringes fundamental rights under
     clause 2 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, his arrest
     gets vitiated on completion of 24 hours in custody. Since there is a
     violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, even his fundamental
     right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 has been violated.
7.   The requirement of clause 2 of Article 22 has been incorporated
     in Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
     ‘the Cr.P.C). There is no inconsistency between the provisions of
     the PMLA and Section 57 of Cr.P.C. Hence, by virtue of Section 65
     of the PMLA, Section 57 of the Cr.P.C applies to the proceedings
     under the PMLA.
8.   Once a Court, while dealing with a bail application, finds that the
     fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of the
     Constitution of India have been violated while arresting the accused
     or after arresting him, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail
     application to release the accused on bail. The reason is that the
     arrest in such cases stands vitiated. It is the duty of every Court to
     uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22
     of the Constitution.
9.   Therefore, when arrest is illegal or is vitiated, bail cannot be denied
     on the grounds of non-fulfillment of twin tests under clause (ii) of
     sub-section 1 of Section 45 of PMLA.
10. Hence, we find no error in the impugned order, and accordingly, the
    appeal is dismissed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey