Senthil Balaji case: SC upholds arrest by ED, permits five-day custody
5 min readExpress News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the petitions filed by Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji and his spouse Megala towards a Madras High Court order upholding his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a cash laundering case. The high court docket additionally allowed ED to take Balaji into custody for 5 days until August 12.
A bench of Justices A S Bopanna and M M Sundresh additionally directed the registry to put earlier than the Chief Justice of India for applicable orders to resolve the bigger situation of whether or not the 15-day custody interval needs to be solely throughout the first 15 days of remand or spanning all the interval of investigation, 60 or 90 days because the case could also be, as a complete.
The court docket stated the writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable towards the arrest and the order of remand can’t be challenged in a habeas corpus petition.
Police custody consists of all probe companies, says SC, upholds HC order
“Any ‘custody’ under Section 167 of CrPC would not only include police custody but also of other investigating agencies,” the bench stated.
Section 167 (2) empowers a Justice of the Peace to authorise the detention of an accused in police custody past the interval of 15 days if he’s happy that sufficient grounds exist for doing so.
Calling the part a “bridge between liberty and investigation performing a fine balancing act,” the court docket in its 87-page verdict authored by Justice Sundresh additionally stated curtailment of 15 days of police custody by any extraneous circumstances, the act of God, an order of the court docket not being the helpful work of investigating company wouldn’t act as a restriction.
Saying that no writ of habeas corpus would apply after forwarding an arrestee to the jurisdictional Justice of the Peace below Section 19(3) of PMLA, the court docket stated, “A writ of habeas corpus shall solely be issued when the detention is prohibited. As a matter of rule, an order of remand by a judicial officer, culminating right into a judicial operate can’t be challenged by means of a writ of habeas corpus whereas it’s open to the individual aggrieved to hunt different statutory cures.
We discover sufficient compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002, which contemplates a rigorous process earlier than making an arrest. The realized Principal Sessions Judge did pay attention to the stated truth by passing a reasoned order. The appellant was accordingly produced earlier than the court docket and whereas he was in its custody, a judicial remand was made. As it’s a reasoned and talking order, the appellant must have questioned it earlier than the suitable discussion board.
We are solely involved with the remand in favour of the respondents. Therefore, even on that floor, we do maintain {that a} writ of habeas corpus is just not maintainable because the arrest and custody have already been upheld by means of rejection of the bail utility,” the court docket stated. Additionally, the court docket additionally dominated that part 41A of CrPC which mandates cops to situation a discover of look to an individual towards whom an affordable grievance has been made, credible data has been acquired, or an affordable suspicion exists that he has dedicated a cognisable offence doesn’t apply to an arrest made below the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the petitions filed by Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji and his spouse Megala towards a Madras High Court order upholding his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a cash laundering case. The high court docket additionally allowed ED to take Balaji into custody for 5 days until August 12.
A bench of Justices A S Bopanna and M M Sundresh additionally directed the registry to put earlier than the Chief Justice of India for applicable orders to resolve the bigger situation of whether or not the 15-day custody interval needs to be solely throughout the first 15 days of remand or spanning all the interval of investigation, 60 or 90 days because the case could also be, as a complete.
The court docket stated the writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable towards the arrest and the order of remand can’t be challenged in a habeas corpus petition. googletag.cmd.push(operate() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );
Police custody consists of all probe companies, says SC, upholds HC order
“Any ‘custody’ under Section 167 of CrPC would not only include police custody but also of other investigating agencies,” the bench stated.
Section 167 (2) empowers a Justice of the Peace to authorise the detention of an accused in police custody past the interval of 15 days if he’s happy that sufficient grounds exist for doing so.
Calling the part a “bridge between liberty and investigation performing a fine balancing act,” the court docket in its 87-page verdict authored by Justice Sundresh additionally stated curtailment of 15 days of police custody by any extraneous circumstances, the act of God, an order of the court docket not being the helpful work of investigating company wouldn’t act as a restriction.
Saying that no writ of habeas corpus would apply after forwarding an arrestee to the jurisdictional Justice of the Peace below Section 19(3) of PMLA, the court docket stated, “A writ of habeas corpus shall solely be issued when the detention is prohibited. As a matter of rule, an order of remand by a judicial officer, culminating right into a judicial operate can’t be challenged by means of a writ of habeas corpus whereas it’s open to the individual aggrieved to hunt different statutory cures.
We discover sufficient compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002, which contemplates a rigorous process earlier than making an arrest. The realized Principal Sessions Judge did pay attention to the stated truth by passing a reasoned order. The appellant was accordingly produced earlier than the court docket and whereas he was in its custody, a judicial remand was made. As it’s a reasoned and talking order, the appellant must have questioned it earlier than the suitable discussion board.
We are solely involved with the remand in favour of the respondents. Therefore, even on that floor, we do maintain {that a} writ of habeas corpus is just not maintainable because the arrest and custody have already been upheld by means of rejection of the bail utility,” the court docket stated. Additionally, the court docket additionally dominated that part 41A of CrPC which mandates cops to situation a discover of look to an individual towards whom an affordable grievance has been made, credible data has been acquired, or an affordable suspicion exists that he has dedicated a cognisable offence doesn’t apply to an arrest made below the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
