ORDER : 1. The Directorate of Enforcement through Shri Putta Venu, as Director, Ahmedabad Zonal office, Ahmedabad has challenged the order dated 8.4.2023 passed by the learned Special Designated Judge (PMLA), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, whereby the application of Assistant Director of Enforcement filed under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for seeking remand of Anil Bhagwandas Jaisinghani came to be rejected. 2. The applicant has stated that pursuant to the special intelligence regarding operation of the large scale Havala racket in international cricket betting through U.K. based website “www.betfair.com” one Shri Girish Parsottam Patel @ Tommy Patel and his associate Shri Kiran Jayantilal Mala (Thakkar), premises, identified as a farm house in village Sikandarpur, Nr. Ajwa Chokdi, Vadodara was searched on 19.3.2015 under Section 37 of Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999 which resulted in recovery and seizure of incriminating documents, digital records, etc. 3. It is stated that during the investigation, it revealed that apart from Havala payment relating to cricket betting some materiel indicating offences committed in terms of IPC were also observed. The statement of the alleged persons were shared with the Commissioner of Police, Vadodara for further necessary investigation, and the investigation revealed the use of sim card obtained by forging signatures of third person and accordingly, CR no. I-97/15 dated 19.6.2015 was filed by the police before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Vadodara. 4. It is also stated that a case was recorded by Ahmedabad zonal office of Enforcement of Director against those persons and unknown persons under the case file no. ECIR/AZO/03/2015 and with a view to identify the proceeds of the crime, the statement so recorded of one Aman Sachdeva on various dates inter alia reflects that he used to take the line for betting from one Mr. Surendar Mandi who operates the book by the name “MANDI” and the said Surendar Mandi has Mumbai based partner who is named Mr. Anil Jaisinghani, the present respondent. 5. It is also contended by the applicant that during the further investigation, statement of one Mr. Paresh V. Asarpota, accused no.10 of PMLA Case no.10 of 2015 was recorded, wherein he stated that the present respondent used to receive commission from different bookies for referring clients and the respondent used to refer clients to him too and the said Mr. It is also contended by the applicant that during the further investigation, statement of one Mr. Paresh V. Asarpota, accused no.10 of PMLA Case no.10 of 2015 was recorded, wherein he stated that the present respondent used to receive commission from different bookies for referring clients and the respondent used to refer clients to him too and the said Mr. Paresh V. Asarpota confirmed through the documents so seized about the commission received from Maruti Ahmedabad, the bookie name which belongs to the main accused of the PMLA case. 6. On search being conducted in the premises of the present respondent on 22.5.2015 under PMLA, it is stated that the respondent did not cooperate and his family members created ruckus and disrupted the search and thus the officers had to leave the place without completing the Panchnama. Thereafter, various summons were issued to him but he did not cooperate and thus, the Special Court, Ahmedabad was pleased to issue non-bailable warrant on 30.5.2015 against the respondent who thereafter approached this Court by filing Special Application no. 6719 of 2015 against the issuance of NBW, this Court was please to stay the NBW on the undertaking given by the respondent to appear before the ED and therefore, the respondent was directed to remain present before the Enforcement of Director on 7.8.2019 at 11:00 hrs. However, the accused respondent did not appear before the ED on the abovestated date and this fact was taken on record by this Court and was thus pleased to dismiss the petition filed by the respondent and the relief granted earlier came to be vacated by an order dated 8.8.2019. Thereafter too a summons was issued to the respondent but he failed to appear before the investigating officer, Ahmedabad and remained absconding since then. 7. The applicant states that the respondent was in judicial custody of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 45 Mumbai City Sessions Court in FIR no.28/23 registered by Malbar Hill PS Mumbai and was lodged in Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai. The custodial interrogation of the accused was found necessary and in order to obtain his custody, application for transfer warrant was filed before the Hon’ble Special PMLA Court which was allowed on 31.3.2023 with a direction to produce him before the Hon’ble PMLA Court. 8. The custodial interrogation of the accused was found necessary and in order to obtain his custody, application for transfer warrant was filed before the Hon’ble Special PMLA Court which was allowed on 31.3.2023 with a direction to produce him before the Hon’ble PMLA Court. 8. The applicant states that he approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge 45 Mumbai City Civil and sessions court, Mumbai for seeking custody of the accused through transfer warrant which was allowed by order dated 1.4.2023 with a direction to lodge the respondent accused in Taloja Central Prison after the interrogation by the applicant. Thus, the applicant states that since the learned Court Mumbai has already handed over the custody of the respondent to M.P. Police in CR no.113 of 2020 of PS Dhar, MP and thus, after the respondent accused was relodged in Taloja Central Prison by MP police the custody was taken from Taloja Central Prison on 7.4.2023 and in compliance of the order of the PMLA Court, the accused was produced before the Court on 7.4.2023 to seek custodial interrogation which was granted vide order dated 7.4.2023 and accordingly, the accused was taken to Directorate of Enforcement and examined under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 on 8.4.2023. The applicant states that during the course of the statement under Section 50 of the PMLA the accused was asked to provide details of his business activities source of income and his involvement in betting activities and his role in various other Criminal Cases. He was also asked about the source of cash deposit in the Bank account which is a gross receipt of Rs.98,39,172/- as reflected in his income-tax returns of A.Y. 2013-14 but he evaded the replies and thus, owing to his non cooperation he was arrested u/s. 19 of the PMLA, 2002 at 15.00 hrs. at Ahmedabad after due process his arrest was informed to his daughter and the grounds of arrest was communicated to the respondent. 9. Senior Advocate ASG Mr. Devang Vyas, along with Ankit Vyas, submitted that the respondent has acquired and is in possession of the proceeds of crime, though fully aware about the whereabouts of the proceeds of crime he failed to cooperate in the investigation. 9. Senior Advocate ASG Mr. Devang Vyas, along with Ankit Vyas, submitted that the respondent has acquired and is in possession of the proceeds of crime, though fully aware about the whereabouts of the proceeds of crime he failed to cooperate in the investigation. The respondent has knowingly indulged in such activities and he was found to have committed the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA punishable under Section 4. Mr. Vyas submitted that due to paucity of time and non-cooperation of the respondent - accused he could not be confronted with all the documents and evidence gathered during the course of investigation which warranted his remand to bring out the actual and factual position. It is stated that without any custodial interrogation, investigation cannot be proceeded. The trail of proceeds of crime is required to be ascertained from the accused who had been absconding and evading the investigation since 2015. 10. ASG Mr. Vyas stated that the respondent is involved in bootlegging case in MP, rape case in Goa in connection with extortion and forgery case in Azad Maidan, Mumbai, shows his involvement in various criminal cases in multiple states. It is stated that the remand application was moved for 10 days of the respondent which came to be rejected on very flimsy grounds that the respondent is suffering from blood pressure. Mr. Vyas submitted that the medical officer of VS hospital, Ahmedabad had issued the medical check up certificate and on perusal of the same, the learned Designated Judge came to the conclusion that the prima facie from the documents it appears that the blood pressure of the accused is very high. Mr. Vyas submitted that though he was advised medicine and further admission in the hospital, the accused refused and the learned Judge observed that it is a fundamental rights of the accused that during the interrogation the accused can keep silence and cannot compel the accused which ASG Mr. Vyas stated that such observation is in contravention of provision of Section 50 of the PMLA Act. Mr. Vyas stated that such observation is in contravention of provision of Section 50 of the PMLA Act. Mr. Vyas stated that the accused was arrested on 8.4.2023, and that the learned Judge ought to have considered the seriousness of the matter and should have granted the remand of the accused under the authority of the applicant Directorate of Enforcement rather than making an observation that the investigating officer would be at liberty to file an application for the purpose of interrogation of the accused during the judicial custody. Mr. Vyas submitted that the compliance of the provision of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. would be required and such 15 days period would as provided under Section 167 would get exhausted even if the investigating officer would prefer an application in accordance to the liberty granted by the Designated Judge. 11. Coutering the arguments, Mr. Sanghai with Mr. Singh for the respondent submitted that the learned Judge has taken into consideration the medical condition of the respondent and has rightly rejected the prayer of custodial interrogation by the applicant and further stated that if at all the respondent is allowed to be in the remand custody of the applicant, then he has the apprehension that he would be killed by the authority or by other person or sponsored by some interested person and thus, stated that the life of the respondent would be at risk and thus, contended that the investigating officer can take the liberty and exercise the liberty granted by filing an application for the purpose of interrogation of the accused during the judicial custody. 12. The grounds as observed for rejection of remand application is noting the medical condition of the accused on record, as was perused of the medical check up certificate issued by the Medical Officer of VS hopsital, Ahmedabad and accordingly, it was observed that the blood pressure of the accused was very high. No other medical condition was noted to suggest any imminent danger to the life of the respondent. No such ailment or illness has been noted which would not permit the respondent to face the custodial interrogation. The only observation is of the applicant suffering from blood pressure which is noted to be high. No other medical condition was noted to suggest any imminent danger to the life of the respondent. No such ailment or illness has been noted which would not permit the respondent to face the custodial interrogation. The only observation is of the applicant suffering from blood pressure which is noted to be high. However that medical condition of the respondent could be taken care of by providing medicine to control his blood pressure and it may be possible that the respondent himself may be under such medication. However, if necessary, the respondent can always take the assistance of the medical doctor during the course of interrogation as it would be the duty of the applicant as provided under Section 55A of the Cr.P.C. to take reasonable care of the health and safety of the accused. In view of the provision of Section 55A of the Cr.P.C., the applicant would be under duty to take all reasonable care to see that the health and safety of the accused is protected. So any apprehension raised by the respondent about his life is unfounded as investigating officer of Directorate of Enforcement would have to ensure about the safety of the accused. 13. In the result, the application is allowed. The order order dated 8.4.2023 passed by the learned Special Designated Judge (PMLA), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur is quashed and set aside and the applicant is granted the remand of the respondent accused for 4 (four) days. The custody of the respondent may be taken from Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra.