ARVIND KEJRIWAL versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

ARVIND KEJRIWAL versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

The court held that courts/magistrates have jurisdiction to judicially review arrests made under Section 19(1) PMLA to ensure statutory conditions (material in possession and recorded "reasons to believe") were satisfied; the arrestee is ordinarily entitled to be furnished the written "reasons to believe" (subject to justified redaction); questions regarding whether "need and necessity to arrest" is a separate ground were referred to a larger Bench; interim bail was granted to the appellant on specified conditions pending the larger Bench decision.

Parties
Appellant: Arvind Kejriwal; Respondent: Directorate of Enforcement
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal No. 2493 of 2024 / Judgment on Validity of Arrest Under Section 19(1) Pmla; Interim Bail Granted; Matter Referred to Larger Bench
Outcome
Interim bail granted to appellant; questions of law referred to a larger Bench for decision
Legal Topics
Section 19(1) PMLA, Reasons to Believe, Necessity to Arrest, Judicial Review of Arrest, Interim Bail, Section 45 PMLA, Proportionality
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Banking and Finance (money Laundering) Section 19(1) PMLA Reasons to Believe Necessity to Arrest Judicial Review of Arrest +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arvind Kejriwal

Appellant

Directorate of Enforcement

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal No. 2493 of 2024 / Judgment on Validity of Arrest Under Section 19(1) Pmla; Interim Bail Granted; Matter Referred to Larger Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether arrest under Section 19(1) PMLA was valid
  2. 2 Scope and ambit of judicial review of arrests under Section 19(1) PMLA
  3. 3 Whether ‘need and necessity to arrest’ is a separate ground beyond formal conditions of Section 19(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that courts/magistrates have jurisdiction to judicially review arrests made under Section 19(1) PMLA to ensure statutory conditions (material in possession and recorded "reasons to believe") were satisfied; the arrestee is ordinarily entitled to be furnished the written "reasons to believe" (subject to justified redaction); questions regarding whether "need and necessity to arrest" is a separate ground were referred to a larger Bench; interim bail was granted to the appellant on specified conditions pending the larger Bench decision.

Court Disposition

Interim bail granted to appellant; questions of law referred to a larger Bench for decision

Orders

  • Interim bail granted in relation to ECIR No. HIU-II/14/2022 dated 22.08.2022 on conditions (a) appellant to furnish bail bonds of Rs.50,000 with one surety of like amount to satisfaction of Jail Superintendent; (b) appellant shall not visit the Office of the Chief Minister and the Delhi Secretariat; (c) appellant...