Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 110 (HP)

Arvind Rajta v. Directorate of Enforcement Office

2024-01-12

VIRENDER SINGH

body2024
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Applicant-Arvind Rajta has filed the present application, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), seeking, his release on bail, during the pendency of trial, in case No. ECIR/SHSZO/04/2019, dated 22nd July, 2019, registered with Police Station Sub Zonal Office, Directorate of Enforcement, Shimla, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA’). 2. The said case is stated to be registered on the basis of RC, registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as ‘CBI’), vide RC 0962019S0002, dated 7th May, 2019, under Sections 120B read with Section 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Sections 13 (1) (c), 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’). 3. The brief facts, leading to the file of the present ECIR, as per the applicant, are that a case FIR No. 133 of 2018, dated 16th November, 2018, was registered with Police Station East, Shimla, District Shimla, on the complaint made by State Project Officer, State Project Monitoring and New Initiative Unit, Department of Higher Education, H.P., Shimla, wherein, it has been alleged that the financial irregularities have been committed regarding distribution of Pre-matric and Post-matric Scholarships (PMS) to SC/ST/OBC/MC students of the State, under the Central Sponsored and State Sponsored Schemes. Pursuant to the notification, dated 20th March, 2019, investigation of the said case was entrusted/handed over to CHI, upon which, they have registered the said RC, on 7th May, 2019, under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of the PC Act. 4. On the basis of the said RC, present RC is stated to have been registered on 22nd July, 2019, as, the scheduled offences, under which, CBI registered FIR, are mentioned in the schedule, appended to PMLA. Consequently, Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as ‘ED’) has initiated the inquiries. 5. When, the matter was investigated by the CBI, the applicant was arrested and remanded to policy custody from time to time. Thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody and was released on bail, by this Court, on 24th September, 2020, while deciding CrMP (M) No. 1040 of 2020. 6. 5. When, the matter was investigated by the CBI, the applicant was arrested and remanded to policy custody from time to time. Thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody and was released on bail, by this Court, on 24th September, 2020, while deciding CrMP (M) No. 1040 of 2020. 6. After completion of the investigation, CBI had filed seven different reports, under Section 173 CrPC, arising out of the RC, including the challan of the allegations, made in the present ECIR, in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI), Shimla. Thereafter, ED had called him a number of times, in connection with the investigation and according to the applicant, without fail, he has joined the investigation. 7. All the records pertaining to the present ECIR are stated to be in their possession and the investigation was continued since 2019 and requisite record has also been shared by the CBI with ED. The case is stated to be totally based upon the documentary evidence. 8. It is the further case of the applicant that he was arrested on 29th July, 2023 and was produced before Special Judge, Shimla. He was then remanded to police custody and presently, he is in judicial custody in District Jail, Kaithu, Shimla. 9. It is his further case that he has been arrested in the said case with the allegations that the applicant, alongwith persons, namely Rajdeep and Krishan Kumar, through ASAMS Group, Skill Development Society and Skill Development School, had fraudulently acquired amount to the tune of Rs. 29.00 crore approximately, by showing wrong and false affiliation of Karnataka State Open University and Lovely Professional University, by claiming scholarship, under PMS Scheme for SC/ST/OBC student of Himachal Pradesh from Directorate of Higher Education. The said act, according to the applicant, as per the allegations levelled against him, is stated to be result of criminal activity related to scheduled offence and is being claimed as proceeds of crime, defined under the PMLA. However, according to the applicant, there is no iota of truth in those allegations. 10. The applicant is stated to be facing similar allegations in the RC registered by the CBI and those allegations are still to be provided in the trial, in accordance with law. The applicant is presently stated to be released on bail in the case, which was registered by CBI. 11. 10. The applicant is stated to be facing similar allegations in the RC registered by the CBI and those allegations are still to be provided in the trial, in accordance with law. The applicant is presently stated to be released on bail in the case, which was registered by CBI. 11. The investigation of the present case is also stated to be complete and the applicant is stated to be no more required by the investigating agency. According to the applicant, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in judicial custody, for indefinite period. To buttress his contention, it has been mentioned in the bail application that in the schedule offence, the applicant has already been released on bail. 12. Not only this, it is the further case of the applicant that no case is made out against him, under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, as, he had never indulged or assisted any party or is actually involved in the process of activities connected with the proceeds of crime, including its concealment or possession or acquisition. 13. According to the applicant, in this ECIR, evidence was created by the investigating agency, in the form of confessional statements. By moving CrMP No. 4117 of 2023, another ground, upon which, the relief of bail has also been sought, is that the applicant is suffering from severe neck pain and spine pain for the last two months and is unable to carry out his day to day activities. 14. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, has prayed that the present application may kindly be allowed, by releasing the applicant, on bail. 15. When put to notice, the status report/reply, on behalf of the Assistant Director, ED, Sub Zonal Office, Shimla, has been filed, mentioning therein that the applicant has been arrested, as per the procedure prescribed under Section 19 of the PMLA. 16. According to ED, the matter revolves around a scam, involving the allocation of scholarships to SC, ST and OBC students, attending private institutions in Himachal Pradesh, under the Post Matric Scheme. In this fraudulent activity, officials from the Department of Higher Education, alongwith private Educational Institutions and Banks, were involved, which has resulted into misappropriation of scholarship funds of more than Rs. 200 crore. 17. In this fraudulent activity, officials from the Department of Higher Education, alongwith private Educational Institutions and Banks, were involved, which has resulted into misappropriation of scholarship funds of more than Rs. 200 crore. 17. The applicant, according to the stand taken by ED, alongwith others, has played a major role in the scam, wrongfully withholding the rightful scholarship entitlement of the scholarships of the students, belonging to SC, ST and OBC students of Himachal Pradesh. According to ED, they have diverted the said funds into their pockets/accounts. 22 institutions are stated to be involved. In this regard, ED has relied upon the charge sheet submitted by CBI. The investigation is stated to be going on to unearth the illicit money and ascertain the proceeds of crime (PoC), obtained by way of this scam. 18. After recording the reason to believe in writing, the applicant and his co-accused were arrested by ED on 30th August, 2023, under Section 19 of PMLA, in the said ECIR. Thereafter, they were produced before the Special Designated Court (PMLA), Shimla, on 31st August, 2023, and the learned Special Court, after perusal of all the documents, including the arrest memo, grounds of arrest, reasons to believe and material for formation of such belief, has granted five days’ ED custody, with a direction, to produce the accused persons before the Special Court on 4th September, 2023, on which date, they were produced before the Special Court and were remanded to judicial custody. 19. It is the further case of the ED that investigation is going on and is at crucial stage, which requires collection of additional evidence, examination of voluminous records and recording of statements of several persons associated with the applicant and other accused persons related to the case. 20. The prayer, so made by the applicant, has further been opposed, on the ground that the offences, under the PMLA, are different offences, as such, constitute class apart and need to be dealt with different approach, in the matter of bail. 21. According to the ED, the offence, is under investigation, and the same requires detailed investigation to unearth the material and in such circumstances, if bail is granted, it would defeat the case of the prosecution. The twin conditions, as per Section 45 of the PMLA, are also stated to be not satisfied, in this case. 22. 21. According to the ED, the offence, is under investigation, and the same requires detailed investigation to unearth the material and in such circumstances, if bail is granted, it would defeat the case of the prosecution. The twin conditions, as per Section 45 of the PMLA, are also stated to be not satisfied, in this case. 22. Elaborating their stand, it is the case of the ED that CBI registered the case vide RC0962019S0002, dated 7th May, 2019, under Sections 409, 419, 465, 466 and 471 IPC, against the unknown persons. As per the allegations of the said case, there were complicity of individuals, employees of State Government Education Department, Bank Officials and private institutions. Misappropriation in the disbursement of scholarship funds, in large scale, has also been alleged. The offences, under Sections 419 and 471 IPC, are also stated to be scheduled offences, mentioned in the schedule, appended to PMLA and as such, inquiry was initiated by ED and the present case, being ECIR/SHSZO/04/2019, dated 22nd July, 2019, was registered. 23. The applicant is stated to be working as Dealing Assistant in the Scholarship Branch of Directorate of Higher Education, Shimla, entrusted with the duty to verify the claims of scholarship under Post Matric Scheme for SC/ST/OBC students of Himachal Pradesh. The applicant, through his wife-Babita Rajta, purchased one shell company, by the name of style of M/s ASA Marketing Solutions, in July, 2013. The other co-accused, namely Rajdeep Singh and Krishan Kumar, were also associated in the said Act. Not only this, the applicant, though his wife-Babita Rajta, had also formed two shell companies, known by the name and style of : (i) M/s Skill Development School; and (ii) M/s Skill Development Society, in May, 2013, alongwith co-accused, namely Rajdeep Singh and Krishan Kumar. 24. The aforesaid shell companies were not registered with any statutory body, in the year 2013. Thereafter, M/s ASA Marketing Solutions and Skill Development School were got registered under India Partnership Act, 1932, in the year 2015, whereas, the another shell company, i.e. M/s Skill Development Society was got registered in the year 2018, with the Registrar of Firms & Societies, Punjab. These shell companies opened office-cum-study centres at various locations, in Himachal Pradesh, namely, Nahan, Fatehpur, Una, Nurpur, Rohru, Chamba, Rampur. These shell companies opened office-cum-study centres at various locations, in Himachal Pradesh, namely, Nahan, Fatehpur, Una, Nurpur, Rohru, Chamba, Rampur. Through these study centres, the candidates, belonging to SC/ST/OBC categories, were allured of free education in post matric diploma and degree courses, through open and distance learning mode. They had collected the documents of the desirous candidates and their signatures were got appended on the bank account opening forms. Thereafter, in connivance with the bank officials, bank accounts of such students were opened with Allahabad Bank (now, Indian Bank) at Panchkula, Chandigarh and Solan, and with Punjab National Bank at Chandigarh. 25. Thereafter, as per the stand of the ED, the applicant allowed the registration of these shell entities on HP-ePass, (software developed by Directorate of Higher Education for disbursement of scholarship), by using the name of M/s ASAM Education Group and M/s SDS Education Group, in the year 2013. The applicant, through his wife, was partner in the above shell entities. He is stated to be fully aware that these shell companies were not registered with any statutory body, under the State or Central Government. He is also stated to have not sought the approval from his seniors before allowing registration of these shell companies, on portal HP-ePass. 26. It is the further case of the ED that the amount of scholarship, under Post Matric Scheme was claimed by M/s ASAMS Education Group and M/s SDS Education Group, by alleging their false and forged affiliation with Lovely Professional University at Phagwara, Punjab and Karnataka State Open University at Mysore, Karnataka. Through these two institutions, different courses to the students, through open and distance learning mode, were offered, whereas, University Grants Commission, vide Public Notice on “Courses/Study Centres/Off Campuses & Territorial Jurisdiction of Universities”, dated 27th June, 2013, clarified that no university, whether Central, State, Private or deemed, can offer its programmes through franchising arrangement with private coaching institutions, even for the purpose of conducting courses through distance mode. 27. It is their further case that the applicant was in complete knowledge that the study centres, which were being operated under the name and style of M/s ASAMS Education Centre and M/s SDS Education Group, were not recognized institutions and were claiming scholarship on fake and false affiliation letters of Lovely Professional University and Karnataka State Open University. 27. It is their further case that the applicant was in complete knowledge that the study centres, which were being operated under the name and style of M/s ASAMS Education Centre and M/s SDS Education Group, were not recognized institutions and were claiming scholarship on fake and false affiliation letters of Lovely Professional University and Karnataka State Open University. Despite this fact, all claims made by M/s ADAMS Education Group and M/s SDS Education Group, for disbursement, were verified. Not only this, the applicant also verified the claims of even those students whose caste category, courses and institutions were changed in subsequent years, while claiming scholarship under Post Matric Scheme. 28. It has been mentioned in the reply that the amount of scholarship was to be disbursed on the verification made by the applicant, to the bank accounts of students, opened with Banking Authorities at Chandigarh, Panchkula and Solan. The said funds, illegally received in the bank accounts opened in the name of students, were thereafter, transferred to the bank accounts of the shell entities, in connivance with the bank officials, without any enforceable transfer. In nut shell, according to the ED, this amount was transferred without the consent and knowledge of the students. 29. It is the further allegation of the ED that the applicant, with his co-accused, namely Krishan Kumar and Rajdeep Singh, had illegally obtained the amount of scholarship, under Post Matric Scheme, to the tune of Rs. 29 crore, approximately, from Directorate of Higher Education. The said amount is stated to be the Proceeds of Crime and out of the Proceeds of Crime, obtained in the bank account of shell entity, M/s ASA Marketing Solution, a sum of Rs. 85 lakh was transferred to M/s Pee Pee Construction, owned by one Brij Lal Sharma and were used by the applicant to acquired immovable property at Theog, Shimla, in the name of his wife-Babita Rajta. Not only this, the applicant is stated to have invested the amount in the name of his relatives also. According to ED, the applicant has also concealed these facts from his parent Department, as he was having association with shell entities, namely M/s ASAMS Education Group and M/s SDS Education Group. 30. The bail application has also been opposed, on the ground, that the twin conditions, as per Section 45 of the PMLA, have not been fulfilled, in this case. 31. 30. The bail application has also been opposed, on the ground, that the twin conditions, as per Section 45 of the PMLA, have not been fulfilled, in this case. 31. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, in this regard, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4634 of 2014, titled as Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others versus Union of India and others, decided on 27th July, 2022; Criminal Appeal No. 1706 of 2015, titled as Gautam Kundu versus Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, decided on 16th December, 2015; Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2013, titled as Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy versus CBI, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1878-1879 of 2017, titled as Rohit Tandon versus Directorate of Enforcement; and of the Allahabad High Court, in a case, titled as Anirudh Kamal Shukla versus Union of India Thru. Assistant Dir. Directorate of Enforcement. 32. Lastly, it has been submitted that in money laundering cases, jail is the rule and bail is an exception. 33. Rest of the contents of the bail application have been denied. Hence, a prayer has been made to dismiss the bail application. 34. In order to get the relief of bail, in the present case, Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, has argued that there are no allegations that the applicant may tamper with the evidence or he was not co-operating with the investigation. 35. Another ground, upon which, the bail has been sought, is that on 30th August, 2023, on the day of arrest of the applicant, no Proceeds of Crime were with the ED. The details about the material in possession of the ED, recorded reasons to believe were not communicated to the applicant, as such, according to Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel, safeguards, provided under Section 19 of PMLA, were not adhered to, by the investigating agency. 36. Lastly, it has been argued by Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel, that the Proceeds of Crime should of the relevant period. 37. In order to buttress his contentions, Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel, has highlighted the violation of Section 19 of PMLA. 36. Lastly, it has been argued by Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel, that the Proceeds of Crime should of the relevant period. 37. In order to buttress his contentions, Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel, has highlighted the violation of Section 19 of PMLA. He has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case, titled as Bachhu Yadav versus Directorate of Enforcement Government of India Represented by its Assistant Director (PMLA) and another, reported in AIR 2023 SC 4384 ; and Pankaj Bansal versus Union of India, reported in 2023 (13) SCALE 312. 38. The above decisions have been relied upon to show that the mandatory provisions of PMLA have not been complied with. 39. In order to decide the present application, it would be just and appropriate for this Court to reproduce the provisions of Section 3 of the PMLA, as under: “3. Offence of money-laundering. - Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,- (i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering if such person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the following processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, namely:- (a) concealment; or (b) possession; or (c) acquisition; or (d) use; or (e) projecting as untainted property; or (f) claiming as untainted property, in any manner whatsoever; (ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.” 40. The term ‘proceeds of crime’ has been defined in Section 2 (u) of PMLA, as follows: 2. Definitions. The term ‘proceeds of crime’ has been defined in Section 2 (u) of PMLA, as follows: 2. Definitions. * * * (u) “proceeds of crime” means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad; Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. 41. It would be also be profitable to reproduce Section 2 (v) of PMLA, as under: 2. Definitions. * * * (v) “property” means any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located; Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the term “property” includes property of any kind used in the commission of an offence under this Act or any of the scheduled offences; 42. The provisions of Section 19 of PMLA are reproduced, as under: 19. Power of arrest. - (1) If the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession, reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under this Act, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest. (2) The Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer shall, immediately after arrest of such person under sub-section (1), forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession, referred to in that sub-section, to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed envelope, in the manner, as may be prescribed and such Adjudicating Authority shall keep such order and material for such period, as may be prescribed. (3) Every person arrested under sub-section (1) shall, within twenty-four hours, be taken to a 1[Special Court or] Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction: Provided that the period of twenty-four hours shall exclude the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Special Court or Magistrate's Court. 43. Similarly, the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA, reads, as under: 45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given a opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail: Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm, or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs: Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by- (i) the Director; or (ii) any officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of this Act, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically authorised, by the Central Government by a general or special order, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. (2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in sub-section (1) is in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. (2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in sub-section (1) is in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that the expression "Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable" shall mean and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this Act shall be cognizable offences and non- bailable offences notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), and accordingly the officers authorised under this Act are empowered to arrest an accused without warrant, subject to the fulfillment of conditions under section 19 and subject to the conditions enshrined under this section. 44. Highlighting the above provisions, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision of Pankaj Bansal’s case (supra). While relying upon paras 32 to 35 of the said judgment, it has been argued on behalf of the applicant that in this case, the statutory mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA, has not been complied with and as such, the arrest is vitiated on account of the said fact. Paras 32 to 35 of the judgment, in Pankaj Bansal’s case (supra), are reproduced, as under: “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 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. 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. Non-compliance 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. 33. The second reason as to why this would be the proper course to adopt is the constitutional objective underlying such information being given to the arrested person. Conveyance of this information is not only to apprise the arrested person of why he/she is being arrested but also to enable such person to seek legal counsel and, thereafter, present a case before the Court under Section 45 to seek release on bail, if he/she so chooses. In this regard, the grounds of arrest in V. Senthil Balaji (supra) are placed on record and we find that the same run into as many as six pages. The grounds of arrest recorded in the case on hand in relation to Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal have not been produced before this Court, but it was contended that they were produced at the time of remand. However, as already noted earlier, this did not serve the intended purpose. Further, in the event their grounds of arrest were equally voluminous, it would be well-nigh impossible for either Pankaj Bansal or Basant Bansal to record and remember all that they had read or heard being read out for future recall so as to avail legal remedies. More so, as a person who has just been arrested would not be in a calm and collected frame of mind and may be utterly incapable of remembering the contents of the grounds of arrest read by or read out to him/her. More so, as a person who has just been arrested would not be in a calm and collected frame of mind and may be utterly incapable of remembering the contents of the grounds of arrest read by or read out to him/her. The very purpose of this constitutional and statutory protection would be rendered nugatory by permitting the authorities concerned to merely read out or permit reading of the grounds of arrest, irrespective of their length and detail, and claim due compliance with the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate under Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002. 34. We may also note that the grounds of arrest recorded by the authorized officer, in terms of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002, would be personal to the person who is arrested and there should, ordinarily, be no risk of sensitive material being divulged therefrom, compromising the sanctity and integrity of the investigation. In the event any such sensitive material finds mention in such grounds of arrest recorded by the authorized officer, it would always be open to him to redact such sensitive portions in the document and furnish the edited copy of the grounds of arrest to the arrested person, so as to safeguard the sanctity of the investigation. 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. 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. Further, as already noted supra, the clandestine conduct of the ED in proceeding against the appellants, by recording the second ECIR immediately 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.” 45. In addition to this, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has also relied upon para 187 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary versus Union of India, reported 2022 (1) SCALE 577. The relevant portion of para 187 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under: “187. In light of the above analysis, we now proceed to summarise our conclusion on seminal points in issue in the following terms:- (i) The question as to whether some of the amendments to the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 could not have been enacted by the Parliament by way of a Finance Act has not been examined in this judgment. The same is left open for being examined along with or after the decision of the Larger Bench (seven Judges) of this Court in the case of Rojer Mathew 705. (ii) The expression “proceedings” occurring in Clause (na) of Section 2(1) of the 2002 Act is contextual and is required to be given expansive meaning to include inquiry procedure followed by the Authorities of ED, the Adjudicating Authority, and the Special Court. (iii) The expression “investigation” in Clause (na) of Section 2(1) of the 2002 Act does not limit itself to the matter of investigation concerning the offence under the Act and is interchangeable with the function of “inquiry” to be undertaken by the Authorities under the Act. (iii) The expression “investigation” in Clause (na) of Section 2(1) of the 2002 Act does not limit itself to the matter of investigation concerning the offence under the Act and is interchangeable with the function of “inquiry” to be undertaken by the Authorities under the Act. (iv) The Explanation inserted to Clause (u) of Section 2(1) of the 2002 Act does not travel beyond the main provision predicating tracking and reaching upto the property derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. (v)(a) Section 3 of the 2002 Act has a wider reach and captures every process and activity, direct or indirect, in dealing with the proceeds of crime and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy. The Explanation inserted to Section 3 by way of amendment of 2019 does not expand the purport of Section 3 but is only clarificatory in nature. It clarifies the word “and” preceding the expression projecting or claiming as “or”; and being a clarificatory amendment, it would make no difference even if it is introduced by way of Finance Act or otherwise. (b) Independent of the above, we are clearly of the view that the expression “and” occurring in Section 3 has to be construed as “or”, to give full play to the said provision so as to include “every” process or activity indulged into by anyone. Projecting or claiming the property as untainted property would constitute an offence of money-laundering on its own, being an independent process or activity. (c) The interpretation suggested by the petitioners, that only upon projecting or claiming the property in question as untainted property that the offence of Section 3 would be complete, stands rejected. (d) The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is concerning the process or activity connected with such property, which constitutes the offence of money-laundering. The Authorities under the 2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum. The Authorities under the 2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum. If the person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money-laundering against him or any one claiming such property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him.” 46. Now, judging the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of the above decisions, this Court would not proceed to discuss the facts of the present case. As per the documents, available on the record, the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Rani Villa Bagrain House, Chotta Shimla, Shimla Sub-Zonal Office, had issued summons, bearing No. ECIR/SHSZO/04/ 2019-525, on 30th August, 2023, directing applicant-Arvind Rajta, to appear before him, ‘forthwith’. On the same day, this notice was received by applicant-Arvind Rajta. Thereafter, the statement of applicant- Arvind Rajta was recorded under Sections 50 (2) and 3 of PMLA, on 30th August, 2023. The said statement was duly signed by applicant-Arvind Rajta. Thereafter, the grounds of arrest were served upon him on 30th August, 2023. Applicant-Arvind Rajta not only put his signatures over it, but, he has written “read over and understood” over it. Thereafter, he was arrested on 30th August, 2023. 47. Not only this, the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, has also recorded the reasons to believe, which were produced for approval before his senior. The reasons to believe contained the brief details of the scheduled offences, material collected during the course of investigation, the investigation conducted so far, under the provisions of PMLA, the details about the proceeds of crime and the role of the accused persons, in the offence of money laundering. The role alleged against applicant-Arvind Rajta has been mentioned in para 5.3.1 of the proceedings, on the basis of which, the reasons to believe have been recorded, upon which, the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, has recorded the following approval: “After careful consideration of facts and material mentioned in the above note, it is found that there are sufficient reasons to believe that Rajdeep, Krishan Kumar and Arvind Rajta are guilty of offences punishable under PMLA. Therefore, the action u/s 19 of PMLA to arrest the above three persons is approved.” After going through the above documents, it cannot be said that the mandatory provisions of Section 19 of PMLA have not been complied with, by the ED, in the present case. 49. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Ram Kishor Arora versus Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1682, neither the violation of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India is prima facie proved, nor, the provisions of Section 19 of the PMLA are found to have been violated. The relevant paras-20 to 24 of the said judgment, are reproduced, as under: “20. Again, a three-judge bench in Durga Pada Ghosh v. State of West Bengal while considering the scheme of Article 22 of the Constitution held as under:— “8. The scheme underlying Article 22 of the Constitution highlights the importance attached in our constitutional set-up to the personal freedom of an individual. Sub-articles (1) and (2) refer to the protection against arrest and detention of a person under the ordinary law. Persons arrested or detained under a law providing for preventive detention are dealt with in sub-articles (4) to (7). Sub-article (5) says that when a person is detained in pursuance of an order under a law providing for preventive detention the grounds on which the order is made have to be communicated to the person concerned as soon as may be and he has to be afforded earliest opportunity to represent against the order. The object of communicating the grounds is to enable the detenu to make his representation against the order. The words “as soon as may be” in the context must imply anxious care on the part of the authority concerned to perform its duty in this respect as early as practicable without avoidable delay.” 21. In view of the above, the expression “as soon as may be” contained in Section 19 of PMLA is required to be construed as- “as early as possible without avoidable delay” or “within reasonably convenient” or “reasonably requisite” period of time. In view of the above, the expression “as soon as may be” contained in Section 19 of PMLA is required to be construed as- “as early as possible without avoidable delay” or “within reasonably convenient” or “reasonably requisite” period of time. Since by way of safeguard a duty is cast upon the concerned officer to forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession to the Adjudicating Authority immediately after the arrest of the person, and to take the person arrested to the concerned court within 24 hours of the arrest, in our opinion, the reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite time to inform the arrestee about the grounds of his arrest would be twenty-four hours of the arrest. 22. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), it has been categorically held that so long as the person has been informed about the grounds of his arrest, that is sufficient compliance of mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It is also observed that the arrested person before being produced before the Special Court within twenty-four hours or for that purposes of remand on each occasion, the Court is free to look into the relevant records made available by the Authority about the involvement of the arrested person in the offence of money-laundering. Therefore, in our opinion the person asserted, if he is informed or made aware orally about the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest and is furnished a written communication about the grounds of arrest as soon as may be i.e as early as possible and within reasonably convenient and requisite time of twenty-four hours of his arrest, that would be sufficient compliance of not only Section 19 of PMLA but also of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 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. 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. Hence non furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till the date of pronouncement of judgment in Pankaj Bansal case could neither be held to be illegal nor the action of 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). 24. In so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is not disputed that the appellant was handed over the document containing grounds of arrest when he was arrested, and he also put his signature below the said grounds of arrest, after making an endorsement that “I have been informed and have also read the above-mentioned grounds of arrest.” The appellant in the rejoinder filed by him has neither disputed the said endorsement nor his signature below the said endorsement. The only contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Singhvi is that he was not furnished a copy of the document containing the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest. Since the appellant was indisputably informed about the grounds of arrest and he having also put his signature and the endorsement on the said document of having been informed, we hold that there was due compliance of the provisions contained in Section 19 of PMLA and his arrest could neither be said to be violative of the said provision nor of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.” 50. So far as the arguments of the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant, that only the applicant has been arrested, in the present case, whereas, the other persons, against whom the allegations have been levelled, have not been arrested, are concerned, considering the stand of the ED that the investigation is still going on, no benefit could be derived from the said fact, as such, the case law relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the applicant, in case titled as State of Madhya Pradesh versus Sheetla Sahai and others, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 617 , in no way, helps the case of the applicant. 51. In the present case, the twin conditions, as enumerated in Section 45 of the PMLA, cannot be said to be existing in favour of the applicant, as, at this stage, there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused (applicant) is not guilty of such offence and it cannot be said that in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, he is not likely to commit any offence. 52. So far as the medical evidence, which has been placed on record, is concerned, the alleged treatment of the applicant has started on 21st October, 2023, much after his arrest and no document, pertaining to his alleged treatment, in the Jail Hospital, has been placed on record. 53. As per the documents, which have been produced on the file, by way of CrMP No. 4117 of 2023, on 24th and 25th July, 2023, the applicant was diagnosed with inter-vertebral disc disease and routine treatment was given. 54. The ailment, as mentioned in the documents, is too short to consider the applicant, within the purview of the term ‘sick’, as used by the Legislature, in its wisdom, in the proviso, added to Section 45 of the PMLA. 55. Considering all these facts, the applicant is not able to make out a case for grant of bail, at this stage. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed. 56. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 57. Record be returned to the quarter concerned.