During trial
In response, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju argued that statements under Section 50 of the PMLA are treated as evidence, unlike statements under Section 161 of the CrPC. However, Justice Dipankar Datta pointed out that under Section 19 of the PMLA, the arresting officer must provide “reasons to believe” to the accused. He questioned whether the arrest order in Agarwal’s case met this requirement. Justice Datta also highlighted the importance of compliance with Section 19 before invoking Section 45 of the PMLA, which imposes stringent conditions for bail. He stated, “The arresting officer must be convinced of the accused’s guilt as per the law. If this requirement is not met, it weakens the case for the prosecution.” Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the petitioner, referenced a recent judgement involving Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, asserting that both reasons for belief and grounds for arrest must be communicated to the accused. He also stressed that the necessity for arrest should be based on concrete evidence. Agarwal was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court on May 17, as the chargesheet in the predicate case did not establish a scheduled offence against him. On Wednesday, the court confirmed the interim bail order and disposed of the Special Leave Petition (SLP). The Supreme Court’s ruling calls for a critical reassessment of the ED’s approach to prosecuting money laundering cases, with an emphasis on strengthening evidence and ensuring procedural compliance.
ApniLaw AI
Need the case law behind this point?
Ask ApniLaw AI in plain words. Every point of the answer shows the judgment paragraph or Act section behind it, with its page and paragraph number.
