Kerala High Court
Varghese T.G vs Assistant Directorate Of Enforcement on 24 September, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A. No.11109/25 1
2025:KER:71397
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 2ND ASWINA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 11109 OF 2025
CRIME NO.ECIR/KCZO/06/2024 OF ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP NO.56 OF 2025 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR
PMLA CASES, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED:
VARGHESE T.G
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O GEORGE T.V
27/1557 (C), THAKIDIYIL HOUSE
ST JOHN PATTOM ST MOTHER THERESA STATUE
FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.K.RAJESHKUMAR
SHRI.MANOJ V GEORGE
SMT.T.N.BINDU
SHRI.JIJO JOSE
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
ASSISTANT DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (ED),
KOCHI ZONE, KANOOS CASTLE,
MULLASSERI CANAL ROAD WEST,
KOCHI, PIN - 682011
BY ADV SHRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, SC, ENFORCEMENT
DIRECTORATE
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.09.2025, THE COURT ON 24.09.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.11109/25 2
2025:KER:71397
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------
B.A. No.11109 of 2025
---------------------------------
Dated this the 24th 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 sixth 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 by the accused through social
media platforms to induce customers and after those applications were
installed in the mobile phones of the customers, crucial data from their mobile
phones, including contacts, photographs and files were retrieved and they
were used to extort money using mule accounts of people based in Kerala
which were later siphoned off and the accused thereby committed the
offences under section 420 IPC which in turn is a scheduled offence under
Part A of the PMLA. Petitioner was arrested on 20.02.2025 and he has been
2025:KER:71397
in custody since then.
4. Sri. Rajesh Kumar T.K., 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 in relation to the third accused, this Court had already considered the
question and held that there was no proper communication of the grounds for
arrest to that accused and the said situation prevails in the instant case as
well.
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 to the near relatives as well.
6. Though prima facie there are materials on record to connect the
2025:KER:71397
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
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
2025:KER:71397
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).
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
2025:KER:71397
have similar provisions in relation to the grant of bail.
10. With the above principles in mind, when the circumstances in the
instant case are appreciated, it can be seen that the arrest memo, a copy of
which was handed over across the Bar, does not refer to any grounds for
arrest. However, a separate written grounds for arrest have been furnished to
the arrestee and he has even acknowledged receipt of the grounds for arrest.
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 handed over by the respondent and produced by the
petitioner, it is noticed that the respondent failed to communicate the grounds
for arrest to any near relative or even a friend. 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 available or produced to indicate that the grounds for arrest
of the petitioner were informed or communicated to a near relative or any
friend of the petitioner.
2025:KER:71397
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 20-02-2025 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. The learned counsel for the respondent had also urged that the
decision in Pankaj Bansal [supra], does not refer to the grounds for arrest to
be intimated to the near relatives. It was also submitted that it was only in the
decision in Vihaan Kumar [supra] and Kasireddy Upender Reddy [supra],
that the said proposition was laid down, both of which related to the offences
under the Indian Penal Code 1860 and hence it has no application to
2025:KER:71397
offences under the PMLA. Though impressive, the said contention is not
legally tenable. It has been observed as condition No.(h) in Kasireddy, that
the requirement of intimating the near relatives alone would make the
mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India meaningful and effective,
failing which, such arrest shall be rendered illegal. Having been specifically
identified as a part of the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1), the said
requirement will certainly bind every statute prevalent in the country. The
contention that Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act does
not stipulate communicating the grounds for arrest to the near relatives
cannot be countenanced, since the said requirement has been identified as
part of the constitutional mandate.
14. 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 any
near relative of the petitioner soon after his arrest, petitioner is entitled to be
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.
2025:KER:71397
(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:71397
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 11109/2025
PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO
BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE ED IN CRL.M.P
NO. 56/2025 IN S.C. NO. 7/2025/PMLA
Annexure A2 TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER
DATED 18.07.2025 IN CRL.M.P NO. 56/2025 IN
S.C. NO. 7/2025/PMLA
