High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/62038/2024dismissed

Ravinder @ Tanni @ Taran v. State Of Haryana

2025-02-14Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi11 pages

Sandeep alias Koki son of Birampal, resident of Ucha Samana and Ravinder alias Tanni alias Tarun son of Rajbir, caste Jat, resident of Nurukheri. These three have taken vow to kill my brother Sumit. Yesterday on 20.02.2022 at about 9.00 PM, a phone call was received by my brother Sumit and he went out of the house in a nervous condition and today morning I came to know that his dead body has been found in a field near the tibble of Rampal. I enquired at my own level and came to know that the caller was Arjun son of Rampal, who had taken the phone No.8057116169 of the labourer Israr living in the shepherd's hut in the village and called my brother. Sandeep alias Koki and Ravinder alias Tanni alias Taurn were also with him. My brother Sumit has been murdered by Arjun, Sandeep alias Koki, Ravinder alias Tanni alias Tarun. I have identified the dead body of my brother Sumit, who has suffered the injury in his head and left side of his stomach. Action be taken against these three persons. Sd/3 Virender."

! "

&'( ) *+!

-+ ,

( .

-+ '1 %

2 +3+#+4&1

2 +55##+15 . 4, +

" *

'5 ) *+(!

-+ . &, "

"6 "

- 9 "

':4:'3 "

! $ % ':&:(5 -

* -

% ':&:1'

" ; - "

# "

! .

'4! 7*7

% (

, -, -

%- +

$ %

- "

#$ %

% %-

&'( ) *+! 0 "

8 -

0 ,

% -

) ,

$ - %

#!!

$ % & " ' # (

! )

#!!

+ ,-!"

/$/0 . 1 -

11 %- - ; # , *", - "

, < , # %

$ %

- %

#$ %

$ $ % -

+ -

1! !

! 0

03,

!, *

!" ! "*

! -

% -

% 3

@0 .

! "

" $

% !!

& ! $

" $

' %

!% " "% !% "

" (

%! !% # !

' %

* ! $ !

! +, !!$

!% " - !

$$-,!

" $

- "

! " $

/ !

&" $

(

% %

! !

& % - $

%&%

$" -$

& %"$

$% & -$

'- !

% " &%

)%&% %

" $

" "

% "

!%" $$!

% &%

!"% !%"

,1!

&% %

(

!$$ %% ! " !' )%"

%&%

6 $ -

- 2( %

%- %

#$ B

% "

#$, 7

- %

8 ,

, - ,

#$ %

- %

)

?% "

7 !

- -

)

:+ "32. That being so, there is no valid reason as to why a copy of such written grounds of arrest should not be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. There are two primary reasons as to why this would be the advisable course of action to be followed as a matter of principle. Firstly, in the event such grounds of arrest are orally read out to the arrested person or read by such person with nothing further and this fact is

2 disputed in a given case, it may boil down to the word of the arrested person against the word of the authorized officer as to whether or not there is due and proper compliance in this regard. In the case on hand, that is the situation insofar as Basant Bansal is concerned. Though the ED claims that witnesses were present and certified that the grounds of arrest were read out and explained to him in Hindi, that is neither here nor there as he did not sign the document. Non3compliance in this regard would entail release of the arrested person straightaway, as held in V. Senthil Balaji (supra). Such a precarious situation is easily avoided and the consequence thereof can be obviated very simply by furnishing the written grounds of arrest, as recorded by the authorized officer in terms of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002, to the arrested person under due acknowledgment, instead of leaving it to the debatable ipse dixit of the authorized officer.

**** **** ***

35. On the above analysis, to give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002 of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. The decisions of the Delhi High Court in Moin Akhtar Qureshi (supra) and the Bombay High Court in Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal (supra), which hold to the contrary, do not lay down the correct law. In the case on hand, the admitted position is that the ED's Investigating Officer merely read out or permitted reading of the grounds of arrest of the appellants and left it at that, which is also disputed by the appellants.

As this form of communication is not found to be adequate to fulfil compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002, we have no hesitation in holding that their arrest was not in keeping with the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002.

3 after they secured interim protection in relation to the first ECIR, does not commend acceptance as it reeks of arbitrary exercise of power. In effect, the arrest of the appellants and, in consequence, their remand to the custody of the ED and, thereafter, to judicial custody, cannot be sustained."

' 0 *"

- !, - 1

?% "

! -

/ % -

)

- ! :+ "23. As discernible from the judgment in Pankaj Bansal Case also noticing the inconsistent practice being followed by the officers arresting the persons under Section 19 of PMLA, directed to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing as a matter of course, "henceforth", meaning thereby from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment. The very use of the word "henceforth" implied that the said requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to the arrested person as soon as after his arrest was not the mandatory or obligatory till the date of the said judgment. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel Mr.

Singhvi for the Appellant that the said judgment was required to be given effect retrospectively cannot be accepted when the judgment itself states that it would be necessary "henceforth" that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.

, the concerned officer in not furnishing the same in writing could be faulted with. As such, the action of informing the person arrested about the grounds of his arrest is a sufficient compliance of Section 19 of PMLA as also Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as held in Vijay Madanlal (supra)."

'' 0 *

!" !,

?% "

)

:+ "44. It was the fervent contention of the learned ASG that in Ram Kishor Arora, a two3Judge Bench of this Court interpreted the judgment in Pankaj Bansal to be having a prospective effect and thus the ratio of Pankaj Bansal cannot come to the appellant's aid. Indisputably, the appellant herein was remanded to police custody on 431032023 whereas the judgment in Pankaj Bansal was delivered on 331032023. Merely on a conjectural submission regarding the late uploading of the judgment, the learned ASG cannot be permitted to argue that the ratio of Pankaj Bansal would not apply to the present case. Hence, the plea of Shri Raju, learned ASG that the judgment in Pankaj Bansal would not apply to the proceedings of remand made on 431032023 is misconceived.

45. We are of the firm opinion that once this Court has interpreted the provisions of the statute in context to the constitutional scheme and has laid down that the grounds of arrest have to be conveyed to the accused in writing expeditiously, the said ratio becomes the law of the land binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India."

' 0 "*

! -

'( 0

- %

4%2#+

"#$%&'()!$"*'+,

-")*

!#*! $./,

-")*