Introduction

The Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) challenging the grant of bail to the respondent, Subhash Sharma, by the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The case involved allegations of money laundering under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The High Court had granted bail on the grounds that the respondent's arrest was illegal, violating his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

Facts of the Case

1. The respondent, Subhash Sharma, was detained at IGI Airport, New Delhi, on 4th March 2022, based on a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by the ED.

2. The Bureau of Immigration held him in custody until 11:00 AM on 5th March 2022, when the ED took physical custody.

3. The ED prepared an arrest memo at 1:15 AM on 6th March 2022 in Raipur and produced him before the Magistrate at 3:00 PM on the same day.

4. The High Court found that the respondent was not produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of his detention, rendering his arrest illegal under Article 22(2) of the Constitution.

Issues

1. Whether the arrest of the respondent by the ED was legal?

2. Whether the failure to produce the respondent before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of detention violated his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22?

3. Whether the High Court was correct in granting bail based on the illegality of the arrest?

Observations

1. Illegality of Arrest:

• • The Court noted that the respondent was detained by the Bureau of Immigration on 4th March 2022 and taken into ED custody at 11:00 AM on 5th March 2022.
• • The arrest memo was prepared at 1:15 AM on 6th March 2022, and the respondent was produced before the Magistrate at 3:00 PM on the same day.
• • The Court observed that the respondent was not produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of his detention, violating Article 22(2) of the Constitution.

2. Violation of Fundamental Rights:

• • The Court held that the failure to produce the respondent within 24 hours of detention violated his right to liberty under Article 21 and his right against illegal detention under Article 22(2).
• • The Court emphasized that the arrest was vitiated due to this violation, and the respondent could not be kept in custody.

3. Applicability of Section 57 of Cr.P.C.:

• • The Court clarified that Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates production before a Magistrate within 24 hours, applies to PMLA proceedings by virtue of Section 65 of the PMLA.

4. Grant of Bail:

• • The Court upheld the High Court's decision to grant bail, stating that when an arrest is illegal or vitiated, bail cannot be denied on the grounds of non-fulfillment of the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA.

Implications

• • The judgment strongly reaffirms the sanctity of personal liberty under Article 21 and the protection against illegal detention under Article 22(2) of the Constitution. It underscores that no individual can be deprived of their liberty without due process of law, and any violation of these rights renders the arrest illegal.
• • The Court clarified that when an arrest is found to be illegal or vitiated due to violations of fundamental rights, the accused must be released on bail. This principle overrides the stringent conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, which typically require the fulfillment of twin tests for bail.
• • The verdict removes any ambiguity regarding whether illegality of arrest can be the sole ground for granting bail. It establishes that when an arrest is vitiated due to constitutional violations, bail cannot be denied solely based on the non-fulfillment of special conditions under statutes like the PMLA.
• • The judgment serves as a strong reminder to investigative agencies, including the ED, to strictly adhere to constitutional and procedural safeguards while making arrests. Failure to comply with these safeguards, such as the 24-hour rule under Article 22(2), will render the arrest illegal and lead to the release of the accused.
• • The decision sets a significant precedent for future cases involving illegal arrests and bail applications. It reinforces the principle that constitutional rights cannot be compromised, even in cases involving serious offenses like money laundering.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in this case is a landmark decision that prioritizes the protection of fundamental rights over procedural technicalities. By holding that an illegal arrest vitiates custody and mandates the grant of bail, the Court has sent a strong message about the importance of upholding constitutional safeguards. This decision not only strengthens the right to personal liberty but also ensures that investigative agencies operate within the bounds of the law. The clarity and simplicity of the judgment make it a powerful tool for safeguarding individual freedoms in the face of increasingly stringent statutory provisions.