Can ED Restrain Person's Movements During Search? Supreme Court Leaves Question Of Law Open, Allows ED To Withdraw Petition
Gyanvi Khanna
1 Aug 2024 10:14 AM GMT
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on Thursday (August 1) withdrew from the Supreme Court its petition challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order quashing the arrest of former Yamunanagar MLA Dilbag Singh in a money laundering case.
At the request of Additional Solicitor General of India SV Raju, the Court agreed to keep open the question of law whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can restrain any individual's movements while conducting a search in a money laundering case.
The Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Sanjay Kumar and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter.
At the outset of today's hearing, ASG SV Raju apprised the three-judge Bench that the ED does not want to press this petition, however, he requested the Court to keep the question of law open. Pursuant to this, the Court dismissed the present SLP as withdrawn while keeping the question of law open.
It was held by a Single-Judge Bench of the High Court that nothing stops the persons whose premises are being searched from carrying out their daily routine. Thus, the High Court held that ED does not have the right to restrain the movements of the said persons i.e. the petitioners in the present case within the premises.
As per the allegations, the petitioners along with their family members were illegally detained by the ED from January 4 to January 8, 2024, when the search and seizure at their houses took place.
After perusing the record, the High Court opined that "it is apparent that respondent authorities had illegally confined and unlawfully restrained the petitioners in the premises in question from 04.01.2024 to 08.01.2024 and thus, in effect had arrested the petitioners on 04.01.2024 itself."
The High Court drove its strength from Section 18 of the Act. It said that in cases where the ED has reason to believe, which is to be recorded in writing that any person has secreted about this person or in anything under his possession, the said person can be searched and the said property/record can be seized.
However, even in such cases, the person so searched must be taken within 24 hours to the nearest Gazetted Officer.
“In the present case, it is the admitted case of the respondents in the reply that they have not invoked the provisions of Section 18 of the 2002 Act and thus, to detain/restrain the petitioners for a period of more than four days within the premises would amount to illegal detention/unlawful restraint and the petitioners would be deemed to have been arrested on 04.01.2024.,” the Court noted.
In view of this, the Court held that the arrest and all subsequent orders including remand orders are illegal and against the law and should be set aside.
Case Details: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANR. Versus DILBAG SINGH @ DILBAG SANDHU., SLP(Crl) No. 4044/2024
