Case title:

Pankaj Bansal v Union of India & Ors.

Date of Order:

19th SEPTEMBER 2023

Bench:

HON’BLE JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA & HON’BLE JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

Parties: 

APPELLANT – Pankaj Bansal

RESPONDENT - Union of India & Ors

SUBJECT:

• The case centres on the arrest and detention of people in India in accordance with the 2002 Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It emphasises how crucial it is to follow the law and follow proper protocol when making an arrest.
• The method for informing people who have been arrested about the reasons behind their arrest is the main concern.
• The court emphasised the importance of providing written notice of these grounds to those who have been arrested in order to ensure transparency and give them the best chance to obtain legal representation.
• The case also criticised law enforcement agencies' arbitrary use of their authority, particularly when taking action against people who had received temporary protection. In the end, the courts upheld the appeals, overturned the arrest and remand orders, and mandated the appellants' immediate release unless they were legitimately needed in other cases.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

1. Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
2. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860

OVERVIEW:

The case in question involves issues with the law and procedure surrounding arrests and detention under India's 2002 Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It explores the more general issues of fairness in the legal system, individual freedoms, and the part played by law enforcement in upholding these ideals. The case, which also addresses worries about the arbitrary use of authority by authorities, focuses on the importance of ensuring proper legal procedures and transparency in the arrest process. It emphasises the significance of upholding legal standards in law enforcement, regardless of the particular situation or case's subject matter.

Brief Facts –

1. The case involved appeals against decisions made by the Punjab & Haryana High Court's Division Bench.
2. The orders in question had to do with the appellants' arrest in accordance with the 2002 Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
3. Orders resulting from the arrest as well as remand orders and arrest memos were also in dispute.
4. The appellants contested these orders, alleging unfair procedural practises and rights violations.
5. The legality of the arrests and detentions made in accordance with the aforementioned Act was the main issue at hand.
6. It was up to the Court to decide whether the arrest and detention complied with legal requirements and standards for due process.
7. The impugned orders, including the arrest and remand orders, were overturned as a result of the case's conclusion.
8. The appellants were instructed to be released right away unless there were good grounds for keeping them locked up in relation to any other case.
9. The case made clear how crucial it is to uphold legal and procedural requirements when making arrests under the aforementioned Act. Due to the facts of the case, no costs were granted.

ISSUES RAISED: Whether the arrests and detention of the appellants under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, were conducted in accordance with legal requirements and due process standards, considering the alleged procedural irregularities and violations of their rights, and whether the impugned orders, including arrest and remand orders, should be set aside as a result?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:

1. The appellants argued that there were serious procedural irregularities, including the issuance of arrest memos and remand orders, in their arrests. The legality of their detention was called into question by these irregularities.
2. The appellants claimed that being detained and arrested infringed on their constitutional rights. They argued that the proceedings did not adequately protect their rights to due process and personal liberty.
3. The appellants contested the legality of the impugned arrest orders, arrest memos, and Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court orders. They argued that these orders were invalid and ought to be revoked.
4. The appellants demanded their immediate release, barring any circumstances where their detention was legally required. They claimed that there wasn't any justification for keeping them in custody further.
5. The appellants also asked that there be no orders made regarding costs because they wanted the case to be resolved without monetary penalties.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:

1. The respondent stressed that there were no significant irregularities in the process and that all orders, arrests, and subsequent detentions were carried out in accordance with the law.
2. The respondent claimed that the appellants were lawfully being held in connection with a criminal case, arguing that their detention was required to guarantee a thorough investigation and the application of due process.
3. The respondent defended the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decisions, arguing that the High Court had given sufficient consideration to both the law and the facts in reaching its conclusions.
4. The respondent argued that the appellants' continued detention was in the public interest because it related to a matter that might be of interest to the neighbourhood.
5. The respondent argued that the appellants' fundamental rights were not violated while they were being detained and that any perceived irregularities were minor and had no bearing on the process' overall legality.
6. To support their case for continued detention, the respondent offered additional legal justifications for the appellants' detention in addition to those already mentioned.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

1. The appeals were accepted.
2. The orders of remand issued by the learned Vacation Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, as well as the contested orders issued by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court were all quashed.
3. In addition, all orders that followed the aforementioned orders were revoked.
4. Unless their incarceration was legally required in connection with another case, the appellants were to be released right away.
5. The judgement revokes a number of decisions, including those made by judges on the High Court and in lower courts, indicating that the court seriously questioned the decisions' legality or compliance with the rules of procedure.
6. The decision emphasises the value of liberty and due process by ordering the appellants' immediate release unless they are legitimately needed in connection with another case.
7. Notably, the court chose not to order any costs against either party, indicating that it did not believe either party was solely to blame for the predicament or the appeal.
8. As it overturns the orders that caused the appellants' incarceration and orders their release, the judgement appears to place a higher priority on safeguarding the appellants' fundamental rights.
9. According to the ruling, there were procedural flaws or legal problems that called for the court's intervention before the appellants were arrested and detained.

CONCLUSION:

Finally, the ruling in this case emphasises how crucial it is to uphold the rule of law, safeguard fundamental rights, and ensure due process. The court took action to correct legal errors and protect individual liberties by vacating a number of orders and ordering the appellants' immediate release. The judiciary's dedication to justice and fairness in court proceedings is reaffirmed by this decision. Overall, the decision appears to be in the appellants' favour and emphasises the value of upholding the rule of law, making sure that proper legal processes are followed, and protecting individual liberties. It implies that the court identified serious shortcomings in the authorities' actions that resulted in the appellants' detention and took corrective action to address these problems.