ORDER : 1. Present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, puts under challenge order dated 16/08/2024 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Designated Judge (PMLA), Ahmedabad (R) at at Mirzapur. 2. The challenge is made by the Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad Zonal Office, Ahmedabad seeking further remand of respondent no.1 Shaileshkumar Babulal Bhatt which came to be rejected by the designated court. 3. The PMLA case bearing No.ECIR/AMZO/012019 dated 30/09/2019 was recorded by the Director of Enforcement, Ahmedabad against respondent no.1 Shailesh Babulal Bhatt and others in connection with FIR bearing No.-I-03 of 2018 dated 19/05/2018 under Sections 364(A), 365, 384, 387, 343, 323, 504, 506(2), 170, 193, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959, registered against respondent no.1 and others by the CID Crime, Surat for the offence of kidnapping of Piyush Savaliya and Dhaval Mavani, and extortion of 2091 Bitcoins, 11000 Litecoins and INR 14.5 crores in cash in lieu of releasing Dhaval Mavani from his confinement. 4. Mr.Siddharth Dave, learned advocate along with Mr.Ankit Shah, learned advocate submitted that the learned Judge while rejecting the prayer for further remand has not taken into consideration the new facts which has been raised in the remand application, more specifically the facts of investment not disclosed by the respondent in his previous statement, the details with regard to Benami Property purchased by him out of the proceeds of crime and the details of the cash received through one P. Umesh, Angadia on 02/02/2018 as extortion money and further INR 24 crores in cash through the same Angaida during the same period. Respondent no.1 as an accused has not given the details of the source as well as the end utilization which learned advocate Mr.Dave, says that it was required to be investigated further by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during the course of custodial interrogation. Mr.Dave, learned advocate further stated that mobile phone of the accused submitted by him sent for forensic examination to National Forensic Science University (NFSU), Gandhinagar and the data extracted from the said mobile of the accused, the incriminating details/data found present are required to be confronted to the accused and for that the ED warrants further custodial interrogation. Mr. Mr.Dave, learned advocate further stated that mobile phone of the accused submitted by him sent for forensic examination to National Forensic Science University (NFSU), Gandhinagar and the data extracted from the said mobile of the accused, the incriminating details/data found present are required to be confronted to the accused and for that the ED warrants further custodial interrogation. Mr. Dave, learned advocate further stated that due to paucity of time, as earlier only two days remand was granted, the properties of the other accused namely Rajubhai Desai, Kirit Paladia and any other person purchased using the proceeds of crime is also required to be investigated by way of further custodial interrogation and submitted that a substantial part of the said extorted Bitcoins and cash are yet to be identified, which is in the specific knowledge of accused which he is willingly withholding and the statement of Bitcoins wallet of accused Shailesh Babulal Bhatt is also required to be examined as the evidence reveals that the accused has generated, possessed, acquired and concealed the proceeds of crime and also projected a part of the said proceeds of crime as his untainted property and submitted that the learned Designated Judge has not examined this ground for further remand. 4.1. Mr. Dave, learned counsel, referring the judgment of the co-ordinate bench in case of Mohammad Ismail @ Sajju Gotilal S/o Mohammad Hanif Shaikh vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2024 (0) IJEL-HC 248735, submits that the right of investigating agency to investigate the offence is a statutory right and those rights cannot be curtailed. 5. Countering the arguments, Mr. Chetan K. Pandya, learned advocate, along with Mr. Kishan Dahiya, learned advocate for respondent no.1 stated that for the offence registered by the Enforcement Director, the accused was summoned and the accused had appeared personally on 27/06/2023, 30/07/2023, 31/07/2023, 02/01/2024, 29/02/2024, 19/03/2024, 20/03/2024, 02/08/2024 and 09/08/2024 before the ED and submitted that for personal appearance before NFSU, Gandhinagar, the accused also personally appeared and at 11:00 a.m. on 29/02/2024 and thereafter on 19/03/2024, he had given all the evidence to his knowledge to the Enforcement Director in connection with his mobile phone. It is further submitted that for the scheduled offence, he has also co-operated with the CBI and has also filed his appearance regularly. Mr. It is further submitted that for the scheduled offence, he has also co-operated with the CBI and has also filed his appearance regularly. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate submitted that owing to his co-operation, he was granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by an order dated 15/02/2023 in SLP (Criminal) No.11383 of 2019. 5.1. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court to the specific observation of the learned PMLA Judge whereby Mr.Pandya, learned advocate submitted that the learned Designated Judge has dealt with each and every ground raised for the remand and has very categorically answered those grounds in details while rejecting the application. 5.2. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate, specifically laying emphasis on paragraph no.28 of the judgment in the case between Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244 and paragraph no.35 of the judgment in the case between Tusharbahi Rajnikantbhai Shah vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1897, has submitted that the custodial interrogation should not be emphasized for to extract information in the way of confession and submitted that the Apex Court has observed in the above referred judgments that merely because accused had not confessed, it cannot be considered that he is not co-operating with the investigation nor any such investigation should force for a confession which could later on also would be inadmissible in evidence and cannot even form a part of the record. 5.3. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate further stated that the two FIRs being, FIR No.I-3 of 2018 against the CID Crime Police Office, Surat Zone and FIR No.I-6 of 2018 against Dhawal Mavani and others, were filed by the respondent alleging extortion of money from him and thus, stated that immediately on those FIRs being filed, he has been arrested in the case alleged, where rest of the accused are still Scot free. Mr.Pandya, learned advocate further stated the information with the Enforcement Director was from the year 2019 and in the year 2024 they are making a prayer for further remand which itself shows that either they want a wrongful confinement or a forceful statement to lead it as a confession. 6. Having heard both the side on further remand application, in Para-4 of the impugned order dated 16/08/2024, the learned Judge has observed as under: “4. Heard Ld. Spl. P.P. appearing for E.D. and Ld. 6. Having heard both the side on further remand application, in Para-4 of the impugned order dated 16/08/2024, the learned Judge has observed as under: “4. Heard Ld. Spl. P.P. appearing for E.D. and Ld. Advocate for the accused. On further remand application. Perused the application and the case papers. The Court has considered the grounds mentioned by E.D. seeking further remand for 10 days. It is required to be noted that the accused came to be arrested on 13/8/2024 and thereafter he was produced before the Court on 14/8/2024. E.D. had filed application seeking remand for 5 days. The Court considering the grounds had granted remand till 16/08/2024 up to 5:00 pm. E.D. has filed this application seeking further remand of 10 days mentioning various grounds in further remand application. It appears to the court considering the grounds mentioned in further remand application are similar grounds as were mentioned in the earlier remand application. In the present further remand application it is stated that Rs.3 Crores was given to one Mr. Vijay Pala and statement of Vijay Pala is recorded on 15/8/2024 and from the statement of Vijay Pala, it reveals that Rs.78 lakhs was given to Dilip Kanani. The fact with regad to Rs.78 lakhs given to Dilop Kanani is already mentioned in the earlier remand application in para 11 wherein there is reference of statement of accused Shailesh Babulal Bhatt dated 31/7/2023 recorded u/s 50 of PMLA. The mention of proceeds of crime having transferred to two other accused namely Nikuj Bhatt, Kirit Vala and Dilip Kanani is also mentioned in the earlier remand application and that information was already available with the Investigating Officer of ED even prior to filing of first remand application. One of the ground for further remand is that the mobile phone of accused sent for FSL examination reveals that it contained Crypto Currency worth Rs.16.53 laksh and therefore, investigation in that regard is also necessary. On inquiring from the I.O. it is stated that the mobile phone was handed over by the accused 2 to 3 months back even prior to his arrest, which was sent to FSL and therefore, the details of mobile phone and its further investigation cannot be considered for grant of further remand. On inquiring from the I.O. it is stated that the mobile phone was handed over by the accused 2 to 3 months back even prior to his arrest, which was sent to FSL and therefore, the details of mobile phone and its further investigation cannot be considered for grant of further remand. The offence is registered by E.D. in the year 2019 and as per the facts stated in the application in para 4 the statement of accused came to be recorded on six times including statement u/s 50 of PMLA and thereafter also, during custodial interrogation his two further statements are stated to be recorded on 14/08/2024 and 16/08/2024 as mentioned in para 9 of the further remand application. On going through the case papers including statement of accused recorded by E.D., it appears to the court that he has provided all the details about his property and properties of co-accused which are available with the E.D. Hence, no grounds are made out by E.D. to grant further custody of the accused and accordingly, following order is passed in the interest of justice. ORDER The application U/s. 167 of the Criminal Procedure code r/w. Section 65 of the PMLA Act seeking further remand of accused Shailesh Babulal Bhatt is rejected.” 7. In the impugned order, the learned Designated Judge has referred that earlier application for seeking remand was for five days, which as per the record two days were granted. Now, they are seeking 10 days. While, the learned Designated Judge has referred that the grounds which have been raised were made part of the earlier application. The learned Designated Judge has dealt with the grounds and has noted the statement recorded of Vijay Pala which reveals that certain amount was given to Dilip Kananni and mention of the proceeds of crime having transferred to two other accused namely Nikuj Bhatt, Kirit Vala and Dilip Kanani is also mentioned in the earlier remand application. 8. This Court has verified, that said fact is reflected in para- 11 of the earlier application. 9. The fact of Crypto Currency and FSL examination has already been conducted which has been noticed by the Designated Judge and the accused too had appeared before the NFSL, Gandhinagar on 29/02/2024 and 19/03/2024 and, thus, the details are already on record of the Enforcement Directorate. 9. The fact of Crypto Currency and FSL examination has already been conducted which has been noticed by the Designated Judge and the accused too had appeared before the NFSL, Gandhinagar on 29/02/2024 and 19/03/2024 and, thus, the details are already on record of the Enforcement Directorate. The learned Designated Judge has noted the statement of the accused came to be recorded on six times including the statement under Section 50 of the PMLA Act and thereafter too during the custodial interrogation further two statements were recorded on 14/08/2024 and 16/08/2024 as mentioned in the remand application. The Designated Judge was of an opinion that the statements of the accused recorded by the ED Committee transpires that he has provided all the details about his property and property of the co-accused which are available with the ED. The learned Judge, thus, was of an opinion that for further custody of the accused, no ground has been made. 10. In the judgment of Pankaj Bansal (supra) in para-25, the Apex Court has observed as under: 28. We may also note that the failure of the appellants to respond to the questions put to them by the ED would not be sufficient in itself for the Investigating Officer to opine that they were liable to be arrested under Section 19, as that provision specifically requires him to find reason to believe that they were guilty of an offence under the Act of 2002. Mere non-cooperation of a witness in response to the summons issued under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 would not be enough to render him/her liable to be arrested under Section 19. As per its replies, it is the claim of the ED that Pankaj Bansal was evasive in providing relevant information. It was however not brought out as to why Pankaj Bansal’s replies were categorized as ‘evasive’ and that record is not placed before us for verification. In any event, it is not open to the ED to expect an admission of guilt from the person summoned for interrogation and assert that anything short of such admission would be an ‘evasive reply’. In Santosh S/o Dwarkadas Fafat vs. State of Maharashtra, this Court noted that custodial interrogation is not for the purpose of ‘confession' as the right against self-incrimination is provided by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. In Santosh S/o Dwarkadas Fafat vs. State of Maharashtra, this Court noted that custodial interrogation is not for the purpose of ‘confession' as the right against self-incrimination is provided by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. It was held that merely because an accused did not confess, it cannot be said that he was not co-operating with the investigation. Similarly, the absence of either or both of the appellants during the search operations, when their presence was not insisted upon, cannot be held against them.” 11. In the judgment of T. R. Shah (supra) in para-35, the Apex Couert has observed as under: “35. We are of the firm opinion that non-cooperation by the accused is one matter and the accused refusing to confess to the crime is another. There would be no obligation upon the accused that on being interrogated, he must confess to the crime and only thereafter, would the Investigating Officer be satisfied that the accused has cooperated with the investigation. As a matter of fact, any confession made by the accused before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence and cannot even form a part of the record.” 12. This Court, is in conformity with the observation made by the Special Designated Judge, PMLA, on verification of the earlier application i.e. of the remand application shows that the grounds which were raised, on that basis, the interrogation was done and on information provided by the accused, further investigation has been conducted. The grounds now raised in the second remand application are the same as noted and appreciated by the Designated Judge. 13. The accused cannot be now sent for further remand only for assisting the investigating officer for the custodial investigation for the purpose of confession as has been noted in Santosh S/o Dwarkadas Fafat v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2017) 9 SCC 714 , that, the custodial interrogation is not for the purpose of ‘confession’ as a right against self-incrimination is provided by Article 20(3) of the Constitution and it was held in the referred judgment that merely because the accused did not confess, it cannot be said that he was not co-operating with the investigation. 14. The facts on the record as can be seen, runs from year 2019. The accused have continuously appeared before the ED as well as before the CBI. The custodial interrogation under remand of two days was already granted. 14. The facts on the record as can be seen, runs from year 2019. The accused have continuously appeared before the ED as well as before the CBI. The custodial interrogation under remand of two days was already granted. No new ground has been raised warranting any further remand. 15. In view of reasons given herein above, present application stands rejected.