ED barred from arresting accused once special court takes cognizance of complaint, rules SC
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK Advertisement Advertisement New Delhi, May 16: The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Enforcement Directorate is…
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, May 16: The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Enforcement Directorate is prohibited from arresting an accused individual once the special court has taken cognizance of the complaint.
A bench comprising justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that if the Enforcement Directorate seeks custody, it must submit an application to the appropriate court. The court can then grant custody only after being convinced of the necessity for custodial interrogation.
During its ruling, the court stated that if the Enforcement Directorate seeks custody of an accused who appears after being summoned for further investigation of the same offence, the investigative agency must request custody by filing an application with the Special Court.
“If the accused appears before the special court by summons (issued by court), it cannot be treated that he is in custody,” the Supreme Court bench stated.
Also Read- 50 in jail for money laundering and more to follow suit as deterrence theory fails in Jharkhand
The Supreme Court further stated that it can only grant custody if it finds that custodial interrogation is necessary, regardless of whether the accused has been previously arrested under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“Accused who appeared before the court pursuant to the summons not required to apply for bail, and thus twin conditions of Section 45 of PMLA not applicable,” the bench ruled.
According to the twin conditions, when an accused in a money laundering case seeks bail, the court must first hear the arguments of the public prosecutor. Bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit a similar offense if released.
The Supreme Court’s ruling pertained to the query of whether an accused in a money laundering case is subject to the stringent twin test for bail even when the special court has taken cognizance of the offense.
