[Cites 28, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sh. Y. Shiva Reddy vs Directorate Of Enforcement Zonal ... on 9 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:11569-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.5843 OF 2025
Sh. Y. Shiva Reddy, ]
R/o. Nalasopara, Vasai Road, ]
Dist. Palghar ].. Petitioner
Versus
1. Directorate of Enforcement, ]
Zonal Office II, ]
Through its Assistant Director ]
2. State of Maharashtra, ]
Home Department, ]
Through its Secretary ] .. Respondents
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Kathyaeni Ramshetty,
Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi, Mr. Soma Srinath, Mr. Shashi Preetham
and Ms. Riya Arora, i/by Ms. Pravada Raut, Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General, with Mr. Chaitanya
Pendse, Mr. Aditya Thakkar, Mr. Krishnakant Deshmukh,
Mr. Rajdatta Nagre, Mr. Adarsh Vyas and Mr. Rama Gupta,
Advocates for Respondent No.1-ED.
Mr. J.P. Yagnik, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.2-
State of Maharashtra.
CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
Judgment is reserved on : 2nd February 2026
Judgment is pronounced on : 9th March 2026
"JUDGMENT"
PER, GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
By the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks a declaration that his
WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit
arrest by the respondent no.1 ("ED") on 13th August 2025 is illegal
and violates his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14,
19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further
prays for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 14 th August
2025, 20th August 2025 and all other orders passed in Remand
Application No.1136 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge (PMLA) and for a direction for his release from custody.
2. The petitioner joined the Vasai-Virar City Municipal
Corporation ("VVCMC") as a Deputy Director, Town Planning on 13 th
August 2010. Between 2019 and 2023, the following four First
Information Reports ("FIR") were registered at the Tulinj police
station and Achole police station:
(i) FIR no.1348 of 2019 dated 26th November 2019 registered
under sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 ("IPC");
(ii) FIR no.195 of 2022 dated 26th April 2022 registered under
section 420 of IPC;
(iii) FIR no.196 of 2022 dated 27th April 2022 registered under
sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC; and
(iv) FIR no.69 of 2023 dated 2nd February 2023 registered under
section 420 of IPC.
3. The allegations in these FIRs pertain to illegal construction of
41 buildings by developers using upon forged permissions and
fabricated documents on lands that were reserved for a sewage
treatment plant and dumping ground. By an order dated 8 th July
2024 in Writ Petition No.15853 of 2022, this Court directed
demolition of 41 illegal buildings. The demolitions were carried on
WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit
20th February 2025, affecting approximately 2,500 families. On the
very next day, i.e., 21st February 2025, an Enforcement Case
Information Report vide ECIR/MBZO-II/10/2025 was registered by
the ED on the basis of the FIRs bearing nos.1348/2019, 195/2022
and 69/2023 concerning the illegal constructions and matters
connected therewith.
4. From March 2025 onwards, statements of several persons
including the petitioner were recorded under section 50 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("PMLA"). On 14th May
2025, 15th May 2025 and 3rd June 2025, search and seizure
operations were conducted at the petitioner's residences in
Hyderabad and Mumbai. Along with property documents,
unaccounted cash of Rs. 8.23 crores and diamond-studded jewellery
valued at Rs. 23.28 crores (26,338 grams) were found and seized by
the ED. Based on the material so gathered, an information was
shared with the State authorities and a First Information Report vide
FIR no. 330 of 2025 was registered on 1 st August 2025 under
sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
("PC Act") against the petitioner. By way of an Addendum, the
aforesaid FIR was made a part of the ECIR on 4 th August 2025. On
13th August 2025, the petitioner was arrested by the ED and
furnished with the written grounds of arrest and the reasons to
believe for invoking section 19 of the PMLA. The petitioner is
presently in judicial custody pursuant to successive remand orders
including orders dated 14th August 2025, 20th August 2025,
3rd September 2025, 8th September 2025, 17th September 2025 and
1st October 2025. It is in this backdrop that the present petition has
been filed.
WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit
5. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner's arrest is illegal and is liable to be so
declared notwithstanding the remand orders, as the arrest of the
petitioner was not in conformity with section 19(1) of the PMLA. He
contended that no predicate offence is attributed to the petitioner in
relation to the first four FIRs 1, which concern illegal construction by
developers between 2013 and 2021. The petitioner is neither named
as an accused in those FIRs nor in any charge-sheet filed pursuant
thereto. According to the learned senior counsel, the jurisdictional
facts sine qua non for constituting the offence of money laundering
under sections 2(1)(u) and the offence under section 3 of the PMLA
are absent, as no criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is
attributable to the petitioner. It was urged that the allegation against
the petitioner arises from FIR no.330 of 2025 registered under the
PC Act for taking commission/bribes for granting development
permissions. The alleged offence is distinct and require a separate
factual foundation; and any investigation into bribery falls within the
domain of the police and not the ED. The learned senior counsel
contended that section 3 of the PMLA does not criminalize
possession of property, but only the processes or activities
connected with "proceeds of crime". According to him, the ED cannot
first register an ECIR and thereafter seek to establish a predicate
offence to validate its actions. This is jurisdictionally fatal and not a
curable defect.
6. Mr. Pahwa further submitted that the power of arrest under
section 19 of the PMLA is conditional upon the existence of materials
1 First Information Reports bearing C.R. nos.1348/2019, 195/2022, 196/2022 and 69/2023
WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit
with the Arresting Officer to record a satisfaction that he has
reasons to believe that the person is guilty of the offence of money
laundering. He argued that at the time of his arrest, neither the
petitioner's role nor the proceeds of crime were identified. The
alleged proceeds of crime are quantified for the first time in the ED's
counter-affidavit at Rs. 51.77 crores for the period 13 th January
2022 to 28th July 2025. This is allegedly for issuance of construction
permissions, but it has no nexus with the subject matter of the
earlier four FIRs relating to illegal construction of 41 buildings
between 2013 to 2021. The ED has failed to demonstrate any live
nexus between the seized cash/ jewellery and the offence of money
laundering. Reliance on the statements recorded under section 50 of
the PMLA or on What'sApp chats is not enough and the ED cannot
arrest the petitioner merely on the basis of suspicion. There was no
necessity to arrest as the petitioner had fully co-operated with the
investigation on twelve occasions prior to his arrest. The petitioner
had furnished explanations on affidavit regarding the assets seized
by the ED, but the same is not considered. Mr. Pahwa relied on the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary v. Union of India" 2 and "Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of
Enforcement"3 and the judgment of this Court in "Anilkumar
Khanderao Pawar v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr." 4 in support of
the reliefs prayed for in this petition.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Singh, the learned Additional
Solicitor General submitted that this petition has been belatedly filed
2 (2023) 12 SCC 1
3 (2025) 2 SCC 248
4 Judgment dated 15th October 2025 passed in Criminal Writ Petition no. 4779 of
WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit
in November 2025, more than three months after the arrest. The
learned Additional Solicitor General relied upon the counter-affidavit
dated 2nd December 2025 and submitted that all safeguards under
section 19 of the PMLA have been complied with. The petitioner has
been supplied with the arrest memo, personal search memo, written
grounds of arrest and reasons to believe, thus complying with the
requirements of law. The learned ASG submitted that the ECIR
investigation by the ED revealed a large cartel including the
petitioner, architects, liasioners, developers and other VVCMC
officials responsible for illegal construction and large scale
corruption in VVCMC. During the search operations, large number
of documents, unaccounted cash, digital devices, agreements and
bank statements have been seized from various persons. Statements
of various persons are recorded under section 50 of the PMLA and
the incriminating What'sApp chats disclose use of coded language
for bribe/commission payments. The custodial interrogation of the
petitioner has revealed that the petitioner was involved in corrupt
practices during his tenure at VVCMC. The petitioner not only
turned a blind eye to the illegal constructions, but protected them in
lieu of fixed rate for bribes. The information of unaccounted cash
and jewellery was shared under section 66(2) of the PMLA with the
jurisdictional police, leading to registration of FIR no.330 of 2025,
investigation of which is on-going. Thus, it is only after the predicate
offence was registered on 1st August 2025 that an Addendum to
ECIR was made on 4th August 2025 and the petitioner was arrested
by the ED on 13th August 2025. It is not the case of any reversal of
statutory sequence provided under the PMLA.
8. The learned ASG further submitted that the petitioner under
WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit
the garb of the present petition cannot bypass the provisions of
section 45 of the PMLA. The jurisdictional Court upon examining the
material was duly satisfied about the existence of the conditions for
remanding the petitioner to judicial custody. The present petition is
filed almost four months after the arrest and seeks to re-agitate
issues already argued before the Special Court. This shows that the
petition is not bona fide, but an attempt to seek bail by-passing the
statutory requirement under section 45 of the PMLA. The petitioner
has failed to demonstrate as to how the material relied upon by the
ED is extraneous or renders his arrest illegal. The learned ASG
submitted that at this stage, the Court cannot assess the quality of
the material in the reasons to believe. The offence of money
laundering is an independent offence and in any case, the petitioner
has been charged with a predicate offence of corruption under the
PC Act. Hence, there is no question of any reliefs being granted to
the petitioner. The learned ASG relied upon the judgments in "Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary" and also in "Radhika Agarwal v. Union of
India"5 and sought for dismissal of the petition.
Reasons and Analysis:
9. We have perused the record and after hearing the learned
counsels for the parties at length, find no merit in this petition. The
scope of judicial review over arrest under the special statutes is
elucidated in the judgment of "Radhika Agarwal" wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power of judicial review
must be exercised cautiously and only in cases of manifest
arbitrariness or gross non-compliance with statutory safeguards.
The relevant portions of the said judgment read as under:
5 (2025) 6 SCC 545
WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit
"92. It hardly needs to be reiterated that the power of judicial review over
the subjective satisfaction or opinion of the statutory authority would
have different facets depending on the facts and circumstances of each
case. The criteria or parameters of judicial review over the subjective
satisfaction applicable in service related cases, cannot be made
applicable to the cases of arrest made under the special Acts. The
scrutiny on the subjective opinion or satisfaction of the authorised
officer to arrest the person could not be a matter of judicial review,
inasmuch as when the arrest is made by the authorised officer on he
having been satisfied about the alleged commission of the offences
under the special Act, the matter would be at a very nascent stage of
the investigation or inquiry. The very use of the phrase "reasons to
believe" implies that the officer should have formed a prima facie
opinion or belief on the basis of the material in his possession that the
person is guilty or has committed the offence under the relevant special
Act. Sufficiency or adequacy of the material on the basis of which such
belief is formed by the authorised officer, would not be a matter of
scrutiny by the courts at such a nascent stage of inquiry or
investigation.
93. As held in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B.63, ordinarily arrest is a
part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes.
The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various
facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of crime and
the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be
circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to
discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in
order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to
protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to
prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the society,
etc. For these or such other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable
part of the process of investigation.
94. It is pertinent to note that the special Acts are enacted to achieve
specific purposes and objectives. The power of judicial review in cases
of arrest under such special Acts should be exercised very cautiously
and in rare circumstances to balance individual liberty with the interest
of justice and of the society at large. Any liberal approach in construing
the stringent provisions of the special Acts may frustrate the very
purpose and objective of the Acts. It hardly needs to be stated that the
offences under the PMLA or the Customs Act or FERA are the offences
of very serious nature affecting the financial systems and in turn the
sovereignty and integrity of the nation. The provisions contained in the
said Acts therefore must be construed in the manner which would
WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit
enhance the objectives of the Acts, and not frustrate the same. Frequent
or casual interference of the courts in the functioning of the authorised
officers who have been specially conferred with the powers to combat
the serious crimes, may embolden the unscrupulous elements to commit
such crimes and may not do justice to the victims, who in such cases
would be the society at large and the nation itself. With the
advancement in technology, the very nature of crimes has become more
and more intricate and complicated. Hence, minor procedural lapse on
the part of authorised officers may not be seen with magnifying glass
by the courts in exercise of the powers of judicial review, which may
ultimately end up granting undue advantage or benefit to the person
accused of very serious offences under the special Acts. Such offences
are against the society and against the nation at large, and cannot be
compared with the ordinary offences committed against an individual,
nor the accused in such cases be compared with the accused of
ordinary crimes.
95. Though, the power of judicial review keeps a check and balance on the
functioning of the public authorities and is exercised for better and more
efficient and informed exercise of their powers, such power has to be
exercised very cautiously keeping in mind that such exercise of power
of judicial review may not lead to judicial overreach, undermining the
powers of the statutory authorities. To sum up, the powers of judicial
review may not be exercised unless there is manifest arbitrariness or
gross violation or non-compliance of the statutory safeguards provided
under the special Acts, required to be followed by the authorised
officers when an arrest is made of a person prima facie guilty of or
having committed offence under the special Act."
10. In the present case, the record reveals that due process
prescribed under the PMLA has been followed before arresting the
petitioner. While investigating into the illegalities at VVCMC, the
petitioner was examined on several occasions and his residences
were raided by the ED. On 23rd June 2025, the ED recorded reasons
and issued a show cause notice under section 8(1) of the PMLA. The
material gathered during investigation was shared with the
jurisdictional police under section 66(2) of the PMLA, culminating in
registration of FIR no.330 of 2025 on 1 st August 2025. Upon arrest
on 13th August 2025, the petitioner was informed of the grounds of
WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit
arrest and reasons to believe under section 19 of the PMLA, where
he affixed his signature. He was produced before the Special Court,
initially remanded to police custody and thereafter to judicial
custody by the designated Court. Thus, there is no illegality in the
process followed while arresting the petitioner. The compliance with
statutory safeguards is specifically asserted in the counter-affidavit
dated 2nd December 2025 filed by the ED and the same is not
rebutted by any material by the petitioner.
11. We are unable to accept the petitioner's contention that no
predicate offence is attributable to him in the first four FIRs and that
the fifth FIR dated 1st August 2025 under the PC Act is wholly
distinct and unconnected with the earlier offences. The four FIRs
against the builders/ developers between 2019 and 2022 are
registered for the offences under sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC
which are all scheduled offences under the PMLA. Pursuant to the
orders of this Court, 41 illegal buildings were demolished in 2025.
The ECIR dated 21st February 2025 was registered on the basis of
these FIRs relating to large-scale illegal permissions and
constructions. During the course of investigation, statements of
various accused persons including developers, architects, liasioners
and VVCMC Officials were recorded. It was in the course of such
investigation that the petitioner's role in relation to development
permissions and the illegal construction including on government
land came to light. Consequently, search and seizure operations
were conducted on 14th May 2025, 15th May 2025 and 3rd June
2025 at the petitioner's premises in Mumbai and Hyderabad,
resulting in discovery and seizure of Rs.8.23 crores in unaccounted
cash, diamond-studded jewellery valued at Rs.23.28 crores and
WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit
several documents pertaining to rental and lease arrangements.
Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA defines "proceeds of crime" in expansive
terms to mean any property derived or obtained, directly or
indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled
offence. The Explanation to section 2(1)(u) clarifies that the proceeds
of crime includes property not only derived or obtained from the
scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or
indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity
relatable to the scheduled offence. The definition is wide and will
encompass a situation like the present one. If a person takes a
bribe, he acquires proceeds of crime. Therefore, prima facie the
recovery of unaccounted cash, jewellery and other incriminating
articles and the statement of witnesses recorded under section 50 of
the PMLA taken together provided sufficient foundation for the
Arresting Officer to believe that the petitioner is prima facie guilty of
money laundering. The relevant grounds mentioned in the arrest
memo extracted below indicate that there is tangible material and
credible evidence of the involvement of the petitioner in the
commission of predicate offence:
"GROUNDS OF ARREST FOR INVOKING SECTION 19 OF PMLA, 2002
FOR ARREST OF SHRI Y.S. REDDY IN ECIT/MBZO-II/10/2025
You, Y S REDDY, are hereby informed that during the ongoing inquiry
and investigation under PMLA by the Directorate of Enforcement, various
incriminating records (including the digital devices), Whatsapp Chats and
statements of various persons were taken on record, wherein it has been
revealed that:
1. You have deliberately and intentionally committed omission to
perform your lawful public duty and thereby actually involved in
acquisition, possession of several crores of the Proceeds of Crime
and thereafter its concealment and utilisation for your personal
benefit and enrichment.
WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit
2. You have organized a cartel of VVCMC officers, Junior Engineers,
Architects, Cas and Liasoners as Deputy Director Town Planning
and involved in an organized action plan to acquire the Proceeds of
crime by committing the illegal omission to perform his public duty
and thereafter granting development permission at fixed rate.
3. You have grossly misused your position as Deputy Director Town
Planning of VVCMC, and was directly responsible for taking no
preventive actions so that illegal construction occurs over
government/private land in the jurisdiction of VVCMC and has
taken the substantial amount of bribe money for keeping a blind
eye and taking no action over rampant illegal construction on
government/private land.
4. You have failed to give plausible explanation of Rs. 8.23 crore cash
seized from your premises during the course of search operation on
14.05.2025, 15.05.2025 and 03.06.2025.
5. You have failed to give plausible explanation of Diamond Studded
Jewellery worth Rs. 23.25 crore seized from your premises during
the course of search operation on 14.05.2025, 15.05.2025 and
03.06.2025.
6. You have acquired assets disproportionate to your known source of
income.
7. You have charged huge commission/bribe for granting various
development permissions required from VVCMC for starting
different residential/commercial/other projects which was fixed at
the rate of Rs 10 per sq. ft of the built area of the project.
8. You have established and used an intricate codeword system for
collection of commission/bribe amount from builders, Architects and
Local Liasoners in order to guise the enforcement agencies and to
conceal the movement Proceeds of crime.
9. You have acquired and possessed the proceeds of crime in cash
and the said cash has been collected and delivered through VVCMC
officers, distant relatives and local liasoners.
10. You have not only acquired or possessed the proceeds of crime but
also concealed and project the same as untainted and integrated
the crime proceeds in the financial mainstream of the economy.
11. You hold the office as Deputy Director Town Planning of VVCMC,
VVCMC and in view of the authority and influence inherent to such
an offence you held, there exists a grave and reasonable
apprehension that you may exercise undue influence, inducement,
or threat and coercion upon Builders, Architects, Liasoners and
WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit
officials of VVCMC. There is every likelihood that you by utilising
his official position will influence, induce and threaten the material
witnesses and co-accused persons, thereby impeding the further
course of investigation.
On the basis of aforesaid facts and circumstances and material in
possession, I have reasons to believe that you have not only acquired,
possessed, concealed and utilized the proceeds of crime of several crores
of rupees, but also actually involved and knowingly assisted in layering
and laundering of proceeds of crime, and thus you are guilty of the
offence of money laundering as defined under section 3 of PML Act,
2022 punishable under section 4 of MPL Act, 2022.
Accordingly, there exists sufficient reasons to believe that your arrest is
necessary for various reasons as already detailed in the 'reasons to
believe' being served along with this 'grounds of arrest'.
In view of the above and based on material in possession, I have reasons
to believe that you, Y S Reddy, are guilty of offence of the money
laundering under section 3 of PMLA, 2002, punishable under section 4 of
PMLA, 2002 and therefore, you arrest under Section 19(1) of PMLA is
warranted.
Sd/- 13/08/25
(Praduman Sharma)
Assistant Director
(Arresting Officer)
I have been intimated about the grounds of arrest at the time of my arrest
in adherence to the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and
Section 19(1) of PMLA and have also been made aware of my rights as
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of D. K.
Basu Vs. West Bengal with regard to the rights of the arrested person.
Sd/- 13/8/25
(Signature of Y.S. Reddy)
Arrestee/Arrested person"
12. The ED arrived at a subjective satisfaction about the
commission of offence of money laundering based on the materials
against the petitioner which included the seizure of disproportionate
assets from the petitioner. The allegation is that the petitioner
calculated bribes file-wise and the proceeds of crime so generated
were disguised and concealed while purchasing jewellery and other
WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit
luxury items. A perusal of the reasons to believe indicates that the
same is based on the material in possession of the ED. At this stage,
it cannot be argued that the first four FIRs are not linked or inter-
connected to the fifth FIR. The offence under section 13 of the PC
Act registered against the petitioner is itself a scheduled offence. The
ED has set out in detail the grounds for arrest and the recorded
reasons to believe under section 19 of the PMLA based on the digital
devices and unaccounted cash/jewellery recovered from the
petitioner. The ED has recorded the statements of several persons
including the petitioner under section 50 of the PMLA which clearly
implicate him. The ED had sufficient tangible material to arrest the
petitioner. Therefore, merely because the petitioner has appeared
before the ED on twelve occasions this circumstance cannot be a
ground to hold that his arrest was illegal and to order his release.
13. The petitioner's contention that prior arraignment of the
petitioner in the first four FIRs is necessary to attract the PMLA is
misconceived. Such a construction cannot be accepted as it would
defeat the statutory scheme of the PMLA. This law is well settled by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Vijay Madanlal Choudhary", the
relevant portions of which read as under:
"134. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply
clear that the offence of money laundering is an independent
offence regarding the process or activity connected with the
proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a
result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled
offence. The process or activity can be in any form -- be it one of
concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime
as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to
be so. Thus, involvement in any one of such process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute offence of
money laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do
with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence --
except the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of
that crime.
WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit
135. Needless to mention that such process or activity can be
indulged in only after the property is derived or obtained as a
result of criminal activity (a scheduled offence). It would be an
offence of money laundering to indulge in or to assist or being
party to the process or activity connected with the proceeds of
crime; and such process or activity in a given fact situation may
be a continuing offence, irrespective of the date and time of
commission of the scheduled offence. In other words, the
criminal activity may have been committed before the same had
been notified as scheduled offence for the purpose of the 2002
Act, but if a person has indulged in or continues to indulge
directly or indirectly in dealing with proceeds of crime, derived
or obtained from such criminal activity even after it has been
notified as scheduled offence, may be liable to be prosecuted for
offence of money laundering under the 2002 Act -- for
continuing to possess or conceal the proceeds of crime (fully or
in part) or retaining possession thereof or uses it in trenches
until fully exhausted. The offence of money laundering is not
dependent on or linked to the date on which the scheduled
offence, or if we may say so, the predicate offence has been
committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person
indulges in the process or activity connected with such proceeds
of crime."
14. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner is not correct in
his submission that the "proceeds of crime" was quantified only in
the counter-affidavit and, therefore, the ED had no material in its
possession at the time of arrest. In our opinion, the existence of
material giving rise to a reason to believe that the petitioner is
involved in money laundering is the relevant consideration at the
stage of arrest. Quantification for the purpose of attachment or
adjudication may vary as investigation progresses. We may further
note that the petitioner was produced before the designated Court,
which upon consideration of the material remanded him to custody.
Thereafter, successive remand orders have been passed and the
present petition has been belatedly filed nearly four months after the
arrest. While it is correct that an illegal arrest may be challenged
notwithstanding remand orders, the Court must be satisfied of
WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit
patent illegality or non-compliance with statutory safeguards. No
such infirmity has been demonstrated in this case. The petitioner's
reliance on "Anil Kumar's" case is misplaced and easily
distinguishable on facts. In that case, Anil Kumar took charge of the
VVCMC in 2022, after the construction of the 41 illegal buildings. In
the search operations carried out by the ED, no tangible or
incriminating material was found at that stage against Anil Kumar,
which would have established that an offence under the PMLA was
committed. The panchanama prepared by the ED recorded that after
a thorough and systematic search of his premises, no incriminating
document or unaccounted cash or electronic device was found or
seized from the said premises. Whereas, in the present case,
unaccounted cash and jewellery are recovered from the petitioner. In
our view, the present petition appears to be an attempt to bypass
the statutory mechanism of section 45 of the PMLA governing bail.
We have also bestowed our consideration to the submissions
advanced before us relating to sufficiency of evidence, nexus
between assets and alleged crime and credibility of section 50 of the
PMLA statements and What'sApp chats. However, we do not find a
prima facie case made out for interference. These matters generally
fall within the domain of trial or bail proceedings and an indepth
examination by this Court may cause prejudice to the parties.
15. For the above reasons, no case is made out for exercise of writ
jurisdiction to declare the arrest of the petitioner illegal or to quash
the remand orders. Writ Petition No.5843 of 2025 is devoid of merits
and is dismissed. It is clarified that the observations made herein
are confined to adjudication of this writ petition and shall not
prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in any
WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit
proceedings before the trial Court including bail application, as and
when filed by the petitioner.
[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] [ CHIEF JUSTICE ]
Digitally
signed by
ABHAY DIXIT
ABHAY Date: WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit
DIXIT 2026.03.10
10:13:53
+0530
