TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed, till final disposal of the trial, on the further conditions imposed - application allowed. - MCRC No. 5288 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2022 - HON BLE SMT. JUSTICE RAJANI DUBEY For Applicant : Mr. Rahul Tyagi with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Hon ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV ORDER The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with ECIR No.RPSZO/03/2019 registered at Raipur Zonal Office of ED, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 3 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short PMLA ) 02. Initially, FIRs bearing Crime Nos.97/2015, 272/2018 and 141/2018 were registered against the applicant at Police Station Gol Bazar, Police Station - Civil Lines and Police Station Gol Bazar, Raipur respectively. In all these crime number, charge sheets have been filed. Based on the above reports, on 3.10.2019 present ECIR No. RPSZO/03/2019 was registered by the Enforcement Directorate treat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to take some time. Therefore, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of Karti P. Chidambaram Vs. Bureaur of Immigration and others, MANU/TN/3645/2018; Noor Paul Vs. Union of India and others, MANU/PH/0561/2022; Ashak Hussain Allah Detha and others Vs. Assistant Director of Customs (P.), Bombay and others, MANU/MH/0084/1990; State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others, MANU/SC/1476/2011; Badrinath Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, MANU/SC/0624/2000; State of Kerala Vs. Puthenkavu NSS Karayogam and another, (2001) 10 SCC 191 and Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by LRs Vs. Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by LRs. others, MANU/SC/0153/2005. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail. The applicant has not mentioned the true facts of the case. In fact, the applicant was arrested at Delhi Airport while he was trying to leave India and he was duly produced before the remand court. He was arrested on 5th March, 2022 and produced within 24 hours before the remand cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cused persons before the Special Court, Raipur. The applicant filed bail application under Section 439 of CrPC on 29.4.2022 before the trial Court. As per order dated 29.4.2022, the trial Court observed as under: 10. 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 4.3.2022 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 5.3.2022 and brought him to Raipur where the ED prepared arrest memo on 6.3.2022 at 1.15 hours and produced him in the afternoon on 6.3.2022 before the remand Court. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent/ED has submitted that the applicant was arrested on 6.3.2022 and within 24 hours produced before the trial Court. However, from the order sheets and documents available in the case diary, it is seen that the applicant was detained and taken into custody at 6 pm on 4.3.2022 at IGI Airport, New D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... One is when the person arrested is an enemy alien . Second is when the arrest is under any law for preventive detention. In all other cases the Constitution has prohibited peremptorily that no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a Magistrate . Hence the respondent cannot validly press for further detention of the accused beyond 24 hours. That arrest has now become otiose. 14. When the State of Madhya Pradesh, whose police made the arrest of the appellant in connection with the M.P case on 7-8-1998, admitted that after the arrest he was not produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, its inevitable corollary is that detention made as a sequel to the arrest would become unlawful beyond the said period of 24 hours. 14. In Ashak Hussain Allah Detha and others (supra), the High Court of Bombay held in para 7 as under: 7. Admittedly, the Applicants were detained without any authority from the midnight of 20th July, 1989 to 5.20 p.m. of 21st July, 1989 - for 17 hours. Their arrest has been so recorded that their production before the Magistrate falls within 24 hours stipulated by Art. 22(2) of the Constitu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terrogation is untenable. Since the offences under the N.D.P.S. Act are cognizable (Section 37(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act), the Investigating Officers possess the authority to arrest without warrant. They arrest a suspect or do not arrest at all. The detention in custody for interrogation is unknown to law. Interrogation is known. A person may be lawfully interrogated. But during such interrogation he is a free man. If he is detained, not allowed to leave the office of the Respondent No. 1 and compelled to eat and sleep there, he is under detention. This restraint is in reality an arrest. In this case, the applicants were not allowed to leave the Office of the Respondent No. 1 after the mid-night of 19th July, 1989. In the circumstances of this case, the applicants were arrested at the mid-night of 19th July, 1989. 15. In the case in hand, the applicant was also detained at IGI Airport, New Delhi on 4.3.2022, he was taken to Raipur by the officials of ED and the arrest memo was prepared on 6.3.2022 at Raipur. The High Court of Bombay rightly observed that detention in custody for interrogation is unknown to law. Interrogation is known. A person may be lawfully interr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
