Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2023 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 374 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking release of petitioner (writ of habeas corpus) - passing of mechanical remand orders without application of mind - HELD THAT:- In Ram Narayan Singh [1953 (3) TMI 38 - SUPREME COURT] , the Apex Court has observed that a writ of habeas corpus is with respect to legality of detention at the time of return of rule and not to the date of institution and that if on the date of return i.e. the return of the rule, the detention is not illegal and is duly authorised by a Competent Magistrate by remand orders then the writ of habeas corpus will not lie. In Kanu Sanyal [1974 (2) TMI 85 - SUPREME COURT] , the grounds raised by the petitioner therein were (i) that he was not informed of the grounds of arrest and (ii) the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case, and hence, the remand could not be granted. The Apex Court held that the earliest date with reference to which the legality of the detention can be challenged is the date of filing of the writ and not any other date; that on the date of filing of habeas corpus, the detention of the petitioner was in district jail and therefore, the legality of his earlier detention cannot be considered; and that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted when the person is jailed and is in judicial custody. In the present case, it cannot be said that the remand orders are absolutely mechanical or suffer from the vice of lack of jurisdiction, warranting our interference in this writ petition, which seeks a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner was arrested on 1st September 2023 and was served with the grounds of arrest on 1st September 2023. The petitioner has acknowledged receipt of the same. The law that held the field till Pankaj Bansal [2023 (10) TMI 175 - SUPREME COURT] , with respect to serving the grounds of arrest was Chaggan Bhujbal [2016 (12) TMI 1014 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - the Apex Court vide judgment dated 3rd October 2023 in Pankaj Bansal, has used the words `henceforth’ and has held that the decision of the Bombay High Court in Chaggan Bhujbal and Delhi High Court in Moin Qureshi [2017 (12) TMI 289 - DELHI HIGH COURT] does not lay down the correct law. Thus, in the facts, having regard to the same, there is no merit in the petitioner’s submission, that he ought to have been furnished with a physical copy of the grounds of arrest. The petitioner was not orally read out the grounds of arrest but was served a copy of the grounds of arrest which he acknowledged by signing thereon. The petition seeking writ of habeas corpus, in the facts, cannot be entertained and as such, the petition is dismissed - it is always open for the petitioner to avail of other statutory remedies, as permissible in law to him, vis-a-vis other prayers raised in this petition. Petition dismissed.
|