Kerala High Court
Anto Paul Prakash vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 9 September, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A. No.6102/25 1
2025:KER:66624
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 18TH BHADRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6102 OF 2025
CRIME NO.6/2024 OF ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE KOCHI, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2025 IN CMP NO.60 OF 2025 OF
SPECIAL CCOURT FOR PMLA CASES, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:
ANTO PAUL PRAKASH
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. WILLIAMS,
NO.3/69C, METTU STREET,
ALANDHUR, KANCHIPURAM,
TAMILNADU, PIN - 600016
BY ADVS.
SRI.A. MOHAMMED
SRI.K.I.SAGEER
SRI.MUHAMMED YASIL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
REPRESENTED BY SHEKHAR KUMAR,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, KOCHI ZONAL OFFICE,
KANOOS CASTLE, A.K. SHESHADRI ROAD,
COCHIN ZONE, KOCHI, PIN - 682011
BY SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, SC, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.08.2025, THE COURT ON 09.09.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.6102/25 2
2025:KER:66624
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.6102 of 2025
---------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the third accused in ECIR/KCZO/06/2024 of the
Enforcement Directorate, Kochi registered alleging offences punishable under
sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short
'the PMLA')
3. The prosecution alleges that advertisements of various illegal
Chinese loan applications were circulated in social media platforms to attract
the general public as customers and after these applications were installed in
the mobile phones of those customers, crucial data from their mobile phones,
including contacts, photographs, files et cetera, were retrieved, which were
used to extort money through various methods by using mule accounts of
people based in Kerala which were later siphoned off and thereby committed
the offences under section 420 IPC which in turn is a scheduled offence
under part A of PMLA. Petitioner was arrested on 30.01.2025 and he has
2025:KER:66624
been in custody since then.
4. Sri. A Mohammed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner was arrested without communicating to him the grounds for
his arrest and also that the grounds for arrest were not communicated to his
relatives as well. The learned Counsel also submitted that the learned
Sessions Judge failed to properly advert to the said contention and only made
a passing reference that the grounds for arrest were communicated.
5. Sri. Jaishankar V. Nair, the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent opposed the bail application and submitted that the grounds for
arrest were communicated to the petitioner and also to a near relative at the
time of his arrest. It was also submitted that since the offence alleged was
under the PMLA, the rigour under section 45 of the said Act will apply and
hence petitioner ought not to be released on bail. It was also argued that the
grounds for arrest were not required to be communicated to the near
relatives, especially considering the date of arrest which was much prior to
the date of the decision of the Supreme Court, which declared that such
grounds must be communicated.
6. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the
petitioner with the crime, since it was contended that there was a failure to
communicate the grounds for his arrest, this Court is obliged to consider the
2025:KER:66624
said issue.
7. In the decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others,
[(2024) 7 SCC 576], Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8
SCC 254] and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another (2025) 5
SCC 799, it has been held that the requirement of informing a person of
grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) and also that
the information of the grounds for arrest must be provided to the arrested
person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts
constituting the grounds must be communicated to the arrested person
effectively in the language which he understands. It has also been observed
that the grounds for arrest must be communicated to the near relatives as
well.
8. After analyzing various decisions, the Supreme Court had, in
Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2025 INSC 768]
culled out the following principles of law:
"a) The requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of
arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional condition.
b) Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Art.21 is curtailed.
When such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary
that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has
been arrested.
c) The mode of conveying the information of the grounds of arrest must
be meaningful so as to serve the true object underlying Art.22(1).
2025:KER:66624
d) If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the
arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the
arrestee guaranteed under Art.22(1).
e) On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing the grounds
of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest would stand
vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot
remain in custody even for a second.
f) If the police want to prove communication of the grounds of arrest only
based on a diary entry, it is necessary to incorporate those grounds of
arrest in the diary entry or any other document. The grounds of arrest
must exist before the same are informed.
g) When an arrestee pleads before a court that the grounds of arrest
were not communicated, the burden to prove the compliance of Art.22(1)
is on the police authorities.
h) The grounds of arrest should not only be provided to the arrestee but
also to his family members and relatives so that necessary
arrangements are made to secure the release of the person arrested at
the earliest possible opportunity so as to make the mandate of Art.22(1)
meaningful and effective, failing which, such arrest may be rendered
illegal."
9. In a recent decision in Shahina v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC
OnLine 706), this Court had considered the impact of the aforesaid principles
in relation to offences alleged under the NDPS Act and held that the grounds
for arrest must be communicated not only to the arrestee but also to the near
relatives as well. The statutory provisions under the NDPS Act and the PMLA
has similar provisions in relation to the grant of bail.
10. With the above principles in mind, when the circumstances in the
2025:KER:66624
instant case are appreciated, it can be seen that the arrest memo does not
refer to any grounds for arrest. However, a separate written grounds for arrest
has been furnished to the arrestee and he has even acknowledged receipt of
the grounds for arrest. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed
out inconsistencies in the acknowledgement of the grounds for arrest, it is
noticed from Annexure R1(b) that the petitioner has specifically endorsed in
writing that he has 'received the grounds of arrest' and the time is also written
as '22:11 hours on 30-01-2025'. Hence this Court is satisfied that the grounds
for arrest were communicated to the arrestee.
11. However, the legal propositions laid down by the Supreme Court
mandates that the grounds for arrest must be communicated not only to the
arrestee, but also to the near relatives, as soon as possible. On a perusal of
the documents produced by the respondent as well as the petitioner, it is
noticed that the respondent failed to communicate the grounds for arrest to
any near relative or even a friend of the petitioner. Though it was contended
that materials are available to indicate that the arrest was informed to the
near relatives, it needs to be borne in mind that there is a difference between
intimation of the arrest and communication of the grounds for arrest. There
are no materials produced to indicate that the grounds for arresting the
petitioner were informed or communicated to a near relative or any friend of
the petitioner.
2025:KER:66624
12. Faced with such a situation, the learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the decision in Vihaan Kumar (supra) was rendered only on
07-02-2025 while the petitioner was arrested on 30-01 2025 and hence the
said principle has no application in the instant case. Though the said
contention of the learned counsel for the respondent was impressive on first
blush, on a deeper analysis, it is evident that a judgment of the Supreme
Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself
specifically states that it will operate only prospectively. Reference to the
decision in Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal [2025 INSC 278] is
relevant. In the said decision, it was reiterated as follows: ".............Now the
law of prospective and retrospective operation is absolutely clear. Whereas a
law made by the legislature is always prospective in nature unless it has
been specifically stated in the statute itself about its retrospective operation,
the reverse is true for the law which is laid down by a Constitutional Court, or
law as it is interpreted by the Court. The judgment of the Court will always be
retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the
judgment will operate prospectively............"
13. In view of the above propositions of law, it is evident that the
grounds for arrest ought to have been communicated to the near relative of
the arrestee also. Since the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the
near relatives of the petitioner soon after his arrest, petitioner is entitled to be
2025:KER:66624
released on bail.
In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-
(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having
jurisdiction.
(b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.
(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the
witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence.
(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on
bail.
(e) Petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification
or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be
empowered to consider such applications if any, and pass appropriate orders
in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this
Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
2025:KER:66624
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6102/2025
PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO DATED
30.01.2025
RESPONDENT'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO DATED
30.01.2025 ISSUED AGAINST ACCUSED NO.3/BAIL
PETITIONER AS EXTRACTED FROM THE RUDS (RELIED
UPON DOCUMENTS) SERVED
Annexure R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF ARREST DATED
30.01.2025 SERVED ON ACCUSED NO.3/BAIL
PETITIONER AS EXTRACTED FROM THE RUDS (RELIED
UPON DOCUMENTS)
