Jharkhand High Court
Amit Kumar Agarwal vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 28 January, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No.793 of 2024
-----
Amit Kumar Agarwal, aged about 53 years, son of Sri Vijay
Kumar Agarwal, resident of HB-165, Salt Lake, Sector-3,
P.O. - Vidhan Nagar, P.S.-Vidhan Nagar South, District-24
Parganas North, (West Bengal) ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Pee Pee
Compound, Kaushalya Chambers-II, Ranchi Sub Zonal
Office, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Hindpidhi, District- Ranchi.
... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
-------
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Suraj Prakash, Advocate
: Mr. Rohit Ranjan, Advocate
: Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Abhishek Agarwal, Advocate
: Md. Imran Beig, Advocate
: Ms. Nanakey Kalra, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
: Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
------
th
Order No. 06/Dated 28 January, 2025
1. The matter was heard by this Court on 5th
December, 2024.
2. After the hearing having been concluded, the order
was reserved.
3. Subsequent thereto, while going through the
records, this Court has found that the argument has been
advanced on behalf of the parties based upon the
pleadings.
4. The order-sheet shows that the prayer made by the
petitioner has been confined only with respect to the issue
of legality of order of remand dated 09.06.2023, leaving the
prayer of validity of order of arrest under Section 19(1) of
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which
would be evident from the order dated 4th October, 2024,
for ready reference, the same is being quoted hereunder as
:-
"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Amit Kumar Agarwal, aged about 53 years, son of Sri Vijay
Kumar Agarwal, resident of HB-165, Salt Lake, Sector-3,
P.O. - Vidhan Nagar, P.S.-Vidhan Nagar South, District-24
Parganas North, (West Bengal)
--- --- Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Pee Pee
Compound, Kaushalya Chambers-II, Ranchi Sub Zonal
Office, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Hindpidhi, District- Ranchi
--- --- Respondents
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kapil Sibbal, Sr. Advocate (through V.C)
Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Agarwal, Advocate
Md. Imran Beig, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate (for ED)
Order No.0 / Dated 4th October, 2024
The instant writ petition has been filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. It appears that the instant
writ petition has been assigned to the D.B.-II by the
administrative order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, therefore,
this matter has been listed today before this Court.
2. The writ petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
(a) to read down and/or read into, consider, determine and
expound the scope and ambit of Section 19 and Section 50 of
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in
consonance with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court inter alia, in State of Bombay v. Atma Ram
Shridhar Vaidya, reported in AIR 1951 SC 157,
Harkishan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others,
reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117 and Vijay Madanlal
Chowdhury vs Union of India reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine 929 and declare that :-
(i) Power to arrest prescribed in Section 19 of the PMLA
cannot be exercised without issuing summon under Section
50 PMLA save in case of arrest effected in course of search
and seizure under Section 17 and search of persons under
Section 18;
(ii) Summons issued under Section 50(2) PMLA must set out
the brief particulars of the predicate offence and information
which is required by the authorised person issuing the
Summons;
(iii) Summons issued under Section 50 (2) PMLA must record
the reasons why the authorised person considers necessary
the attendance of the person to whom Summons are issued.
(b) holding and declaring, with all consequences, the
detention/arrest of the petitioner since 7.6.2023 and
remanded since 9.6.2023 (vide Annexure-4) in ECIR Case
No.01/2023 [arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated
21.10.2022] as void-ab-initio, illegal and unconstitutional as
being in gross violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed
under Articles 14, 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India;
(c) quashing/setting aside of, with all consequences, the
remand order dated 9.6.2023 (Annexure-4) passed by the
learned Court of Sri Dinesh Rai, Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi
in ECIR Case No.01/2023 [arising out of
ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.2022];
(d) directing for immediate release of the petitioner from
custody in ECIR Case No. 01/2023 [arising out of
ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.2022];
presently pending learned Court of Sri Yogesh Kumar,
Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge, CBI-
cum-Special Judge under PMLA at Ranchi for offence under
section 3 read with section 70 and punishable under section
4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
3. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel has appeared
through Video Conferencing to represent the petitioner. He
has referred page 53 of the pleadings, which is the arrest
order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Assistant Director,
Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Finance, Department
of Revenue, Government of India at Ranchi, annexed as
Annexure-1 to the writ petition by which petitioner has
been arrested in exercise of power conferred under Section
19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) Act,
2002.
4. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal
Vrs. Union of India and others [(2024) 7 SCC 576] and in
the case of Prabir Purkayastha Vrs. State (NCT of Delhi)
[(2024) 8 SCC 254 and submitted that the arrest order is
contrary to the provision of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002,
as has been settled by the Apex Court in the aforesaid
cases.
5. However, in course of argument, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that he is
confining the prayer with respect to order dated 09.06.2023
passed by learned Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi in ECIR
01/2023 only.
6. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel representing the
respondent Enforcement Directorate prays for 4 weeks' time
to seek instruction and file affidavit in the matter since in
the intervening period two consecutive holidays are falling.
7. As such, with consent of both the parties, list this case
on 11th November 2024."
5. The argument has been advanced on behalf of the
petitioner in the entirety of issue which is based upon the
pleading and without taking into consideration the order
dated 04.10.2024 by which prayer has been confined with
respect to the legality of order of remand dated 09.06.2023
only.
6. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
Enforcement Directorate wherein also the order dated 4th
October, 2024 has not been taken care of.
7. Consequent thereto the argument on behalf of both
the sides has been made raising the legality of order of
arrest.
8. But, when the prayer of writ petitioner has only
been confined to the issue of remand dated 09.06.2023
passed in ECIR 01/2023, as would appear from the order
dated 4th October, 2024, then the question which requires
consideration is that what will happen to the confinement
of prayer as has been recorded in the order dated 4 th
October, 2024.
9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid, this Court is of the
view that further hearing is required. As such, the case has
been listed today under the heading "Orders".
10. The aforesaid fact of confinement of prayer has not
been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, rather, learned counsel for the petitioner has
fairly submitted that the argument has been advanced
without taking care of the order dated 4th October, 2024 by
which the prayer of the writ petition has been confined only
to the legality of order of remand dated 09.06.2023.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, has
sought for two weeks' time to file affidavit on the issue and
to argue the matter further.
12. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for
the Enforcement Directorate, has also submitted that in the
counter affidavit the fact about order dated 4th October,
2024 has not been taken care of and, as such, he also
wants to file affidavit as was required to be filed in
pursuance to order dated 4th October, 2025 wherein four
weeks' time was sought for to file affidavit after confinement
of prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, as referred in
paragraph 5 of the said order.
13. However, he has submitted that better would be, if
he may be allowed to file affidavit after the affidavit will be
filed on behalf of the petitioner, as per the prayer made by
the writ petitioner as above, for which he has sought for
one more week time over and above the period of two weeks
as has been sought for on behalf of the petitioner.
14. Considering the aforesaid and with the consent of
the parties, the matter is being adjourned for three weeks.
15. List this matter after three weeks under the heading
"Admission".
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Birendra/
