PMLA | SC Judgment In 'Pankaj Bansal' On Informing Grounds Of Arrest In Writing Applies Prospectively: Bombay High Court In Naresh Goyal’s Case

Refusing relief to Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal in the money laundering case, the Bombay High Court held that the Supreme Court’s recent judgement in Pankaj Bansal’s case on giving the accused a physical copy of the grounds of arrest would apply only prospectively.

In a habeas corpus plea filed through his wife, Goyal contended he was not provided the Grounds of Arrest in writing under section 19(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), violating his rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Further, the Sessions Judge authorised his detention without recording reasons for such detention.

A division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse noted that Goyal was arrested on September 1, a month prior to the SC judgement interpreting Section 19 of PMLA.

“…the Apex Court vide judgment dated 3rd October 2023 in Pankaj Bansal (supra), has used the words `henceforth’.…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.”

While the Enforcement Directorate may not have given Goyal a physical copy of the grounds of arrest but he was shown the grounds of arrest. He signed the document maintained by the ED, court noted in its order.

“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 bench noted.

On October 3, the Supreme Court, while setting aside the arrest of other Directors of M3M Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal, had said,"...it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception."

The SC further held that the Bombay High Court’s decision in Chhagan Bhujbal v. State of Maharashtra case and Delhi High Court in Moin Qureshi did not lay down the correct position of law. In those cases, grounds of arrest are maintained separately in a file by ED.

Recently, on November 1, the Punjab and & Haryana High Court held the SC judgement in Bansal’s case would have retrospective effect as Bansals were released. “Had the intention been to make the condition only prospective, the Hon’ble Apex Court would not have declared the arrest of Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal to be illegal,” it said.

Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court held that Goyal’s habeas corpus petition (filed through his wife) was not entertainable as he was already remanded in custody by a competent court, and his counsel hadn’t raised the issues of his illegal arrest before the competent court during the remand.

The court relied on the SC judgment in V. Senthil Balaji which held that when an arrestee is forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 19(3) of the PMLA, 2002, no writ of habeas corpus would lie and that any plea of illegal arrest is to be made first before such Magistrate, since custody becomes judicial.

“…ofcourse, subject to certain exceptions as spelt out in the judgments aforesaid. As noted by us, admittedly, none of the grounds i.e. non-handing over of a copy of the grounds of arrest, illegality of petitioner’s arrest, non-production before the competent court within 24 hours, were ever raised, at the time of the 1st or 2nd remand of the petitioner.”

Moreover, the remand orders in Goyal’s case were not passed mechanically either, the court held.

Case Title - Naresh Goyal vs Directorate of Enforcement

Case no - CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3162 OF 2023

Appearances – Senior Advocates Amit Desai, Aabad Ponda, Advocate Ameet Naik i/b Naik, Naik & Co.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment