Enforcement Directorate Can't Seek Custody U/S 167 CrPC: Former Chancellor Of Alliance University Moves Karnataka HC Against Special Court Order

He was arrested on January 7, 2022 and remanded to judicial custody the next day till 14th of the month. Thereafter, on 10th, the Special Court allowed an application u/s 167 CrPC preferred by ED and remanded him to departmental custody of the Enforcement Directorate till January 17.

Angur has claimed that Section 167 CrPC is applicable to only police officers. Hence, the application u/s 167 CrPC preferred by the ED as well as the impugned order passed by the Special Court is untenable in law.

His application seeking bail was filed on January 10. However, the said application has not been heard. Hence, the present plea filed through Advocate Ashima Mandla also seeks interim bail during the pendency of the petition.

It is stated that the petitioner herein is a renowned educationist, aged about 65 years, having had an illustrious career in academia. He established the first private University and is currently the legitimate Chancellor of Alliance University under the Alliance University Act, 2010, the plea adds.

Further, it is said that the petitioner appeared on five occasions pursuant to summons and duly recorded his statement u/s 50(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 before the ED. Following which a provisional attachment no. 09/2021 dated 27.09.2021 was instituted, which is sub-judice before the Adjudicating Authority. Pending which the ED has arrested the petitioner.

Moreover, it is claimed that ED has concluded its investigation, which was spread over a year and culminated into the present ECIR. The Petitioner cooperated at each stage and provided all the requisite information, documents and assistance to the ED for conducting its investigation. Interestingly, not even during the entire course of investigation was the Petitioner arrested.

It is said, "ED in its illogical wisdom choose to arrest Petitioner at a stage where the Original Complaint u/s 5 of the Act has been instituted, reply of the Petitioner has been filed and case listed for final arguments and hence the agency has failed to establish the urgency and necessity of the present arrest."

The plea says, "ED has no powers for custody as per Section 65 or any other provision under the Act." Further it is claimed, "Nowhere have these officers (ED) been either designated as, or given powers vested in a "Police Officer" under the Police Act, 1861 to invoke provisions of the CrPC. All the powers available to officers of the ED under the PMLA are similar to powers of officers under the Customs Act, Central Excise Act, the now repealed FERA, 1973, among others."