IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.5843 OF 2025

Sh. Y. Shiva Reddy, ]

R/o. Nalasopara, Vasai Road, ]

Dist. Palghar ].. Petitioner

Versus

1. Directorate of Enforcement, ]

Zonal Office II, ]

Through its Assistant Director ]

2. State of Maharashtra, ]

Home Department, ]

Through its Secretary ] .. Respondents

Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Kathyaeni Ramshetty,

Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi, Mr. Soma Srinath, Mr. Shas hi Preetham

and Ms. Riya Arora, i/by Ms. Pravada Raut, Advocate s for the

Petitioner.

Mr. Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General, with Mr. Chaitanya

Pendse, Mr. Aditya Thakkar, Mr. Krishnakant Deshmuk h,

Mr. Rajdatta Nagre, Mr. Adarsh Vyas and Mr. Rama Gup ta,

Advocates for Respondent No.1-ED.

Mr. J.P. Yagnik, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.2-

State of Maharashtra.

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

Judgment is reserved on : 2

nd

February 2026

Judgment is pronounced on : 9

th

March 2026

“JUDGMENT”

PER, GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

By the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks a declaration that his

1/17

WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit

arrest by the respondent no.1 (“ED”) on 13

th

August 2025 is illegal

and violates his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14,

19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further

prays for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 14

th

August

2025, 20

th

August 2025 and all other orders passed in Remand

Application No.1136 of 2025 by the learned Addition al Sessions

Judge (PMLA) and for a direction for his release from custody.

2. The petitioner joined the Vasai-Virar City Municipa l

Corporation (“VVCMC”) as a Deputy Director, Town Planning on 13

th

August 2010. Between 2019 and 2023, the following f our First

Information Reports (“FIR”) were registered at the Tulinj police

station and Achole police station:

(i) FIR no.1348 of 2019 dated 26

th

November 2019 registered

under sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (“IPC”);

(ii) FIR no.195 of 2022 dated 26

th

April 2022 registered under

section 420 of IPC;

(iii) FIR no.196 of 2022 dated 27

th

April 2022 registered under

sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC; and

(iv) FIR no.69 of 2023 dated 2

nd

February 2023 registered under

section 420 of IPC.

3. The allegations in these FIRs pertain to illegal construction of

41 buildings by developers using upon forged permis sions and

fabricated documents on lands that were reserved fo r a sewage

treatment plant and dumping ground. By an order dat ed 8

th

July

2024 in Writ Petition No.15853 of 2022, this Court directed

demolition of 41 illegal buildings. The demolitions were carried on

2/17

WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit

20

th

February 2025, affecting approximately 2,500 families. On the

very next day, i.e., 21

st

February 2025, an Enforcement Case

Information Report vide ECIR/MBZO-II/10/2025 was regis tered by

the ED on the basis of the FIRs bearing nos.1348/2019, 195/2022

and 69/2023 concerning the illegal constructions an d matters

connected therewith.

4. From March 2025 onwards, statements of several pe rsons

including the petitioner were recorded under section 50 of the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). On 14

th

May

2025, 15

th

May 2025 and 3

rd

June 2025, search and seizure

operations were conducted at the petitioner’s resid ences in

Hyderabad and Mumbai. Along with property documents ,

unaccounted cash of Rs. 8.23 crores and diamond-studded jewellery

valued at Rs. 23.28 crores (26,338 grams) were found and seized by

the ED. Based on the material so gathered, an infor mation was

shared with the State authorities and a First Information Report vide

FIR no. 330 of 2025 was registered on 1

st

August 2025 under

sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

(“PC Act”) against the petitioner. By way of an Addendum, t he

aforesaid FIR was made a part of the ECIR on 4

th

August 2025. On

13

th

August 2025, the petitioner was arrested by the ED and

furnished with the written grounds of arrest and the reasons to

believe for invoking section 19 of the PMLA. The pet itioner is

presently in judicial custody pursuant to successive remand orders

including orders dated 14

th

August 2025, 20

th

August 2025,

3

rd

September 2025, 8

th

September 2025, 17

th

September 2025 and

1

st

October 2025. It is in this backdrop that the present petition has

been filed.

3/17

WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit

5. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner’s arrest is illegal and is liable to be so

declared notwithstanding the remand orders, as the arrest of the

petitioner was not in conformity with section 19(1) of the PMLA. He

contended that no predicate offence is attributed to the petitioner in

relation to the first four FIRs

1

, which concern illegal construction by

developers between 2013 and 2021. The petitioner is neither named

as an accused in those FIRs nor in any charge-sheet filed pursuant

thereto. According to the learned senior counsel, the jurisdictional

facts sine qua non for constituting the offence of money laundering

under sections 2(1)(u) and the offence under section 3 of the PMLA

are absent, as no criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is

attributable to the petitioner. It was urged that the allegation against

the petitioner arises from FIR no.330 of 2025 registered under the

PC Act for taking commission/bribes for granting de velopment

permissions. The alleged offence is distinct and require a separate

factual foundation; and any investigation into bribery falls within the

domain of the police and not the ED. The learned senior counsel

contended that section 3 of the PMLA does not crimin alize

possession of property, but only the processes or a ctivities

connected with “proceeds of crime”. According to him, the ED cannot

first register an ECIR and thereafter seek to establish a predicate

offence to validate its actions. This is jurisdictionally fatal and not a

curable defect.

6. Mr. Pahwa further submitted that the power of arr est under

section 19 of the PMLA is conditional upon the existence of materials

1 First Information Reports bearing C.R. nos.1348/2019, 195/2022, 196/2022 and 69/2023

4/17

WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit

with the Arresting Officer to record a satisfaction that he has

reasons to believe that the person is guilty of the offence of money

laundering. He argued that at the time of his arrest, neither the

petitioner’s role nor the proceeds of crime were identified. The

alleged proceeds of crime are quantified for the first time in the ED’s

counter-affidavit at Rs. 51.77 crores for the period 13

th

January

2022 to 28

th

July 2025. This is allegedly for issuance of construction

permissions, but it has no nexus with the subject m atter of the

earlier four FIRs relating to illegal construction of 41 buildings

between 2013 to 2021. The ED has failed to demonstr ate any live

nexus between the seized cash/ jewellery and the offence of money

laundering. Reliance on the statements recorded under section 50 of

the PMLA or on What’sApp chats is not enough and the ED cannot

arrest the petitioner merely on the basis of suspicion. There was no

necessity to arrest as the petitioner had fully co-operated with the

investigation on twelve occasions prior to his arrest. The petitioner

had furnished explanations on affidavit regarding the assets seized

by the ED, but the same is not considered. Mr. Pahwa relied on the

judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Vijay Madanlal

Choudhary v. Union of India”

2

and “Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of

Enforcement”

3

and the judgment of this Court in “Anilkumar

Khanderao Pawar v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.”

4

in support of

the reliefs prayed for in this petition.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Singh, the learned Ad ditional

Solicitor General submitted that this petition has been belatedly filed

2 (2023) 12 SCC 1

3 (2025) 2 SCC 248

4 Judgment dated 15

th

October 2025 passed in Criminal Writ Petition no. 4779 of

2025

5/17

WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit

in November 2025, more than three months after the arrest. The

learned Additional Solicitor General relied upon the counter-affidavit

dated 2

nd

December 2025 and submitted that all safeguards un der

section 19 of the PMLA have been complied with. The petitioner has

been supplied with the arrest memo, personal search memo, written

grounds of arrest and reasons to believe, thus complying with the

requirements of law. The learned ASG submitted that the ECIR

investigation by the ED revealed a large cartel inc luding the

petitioner, architects, liasioners, developers and other VVCMC

officials responsible for illegal construction and large scale

corruption in VVCMC. During the search operations, large number

of documents, unaccounted cash, digital devices, agreements and

bank statements have been seized from various persons. Statements

of various persons are recorded under section 50 of the PMLA and

the incriminating What’sApp chats disclose use of coded language

for bribe/commission payments. The custodial interrogation of the

petitioner has revealed that the petitioner was involved in corrupt

practices during his tenure at VVCMC. The petitioner not only

turned a blind eye to the illegal constructions, but protected them in

lieu of fixed rate for bribes. The information of unaccounted cash

and jewellery was shared under section 66(2) of the PMLA with the

jurisdictional police, leading to registration of FIR no.330 of 2025,

investigation of which is on-going. Thus, it is only after the predicate

offence was registered on 1

st

August 2025 that an Addendum to

ECIR was made on 4

th

August 2025 and the petitioner was arrested

by the ED on 13

th

August 2025. It is not the case of any reversal of

statutory sequence provided under the PMLA.

8. The learned ASG further submitted that the petiti oner under

6/17

WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit

the garb of the present petition cannot bypass the provisions of

section 45 of the PMLA. The jurisdictional Court upon examining the

material was duly satisfied about the existence of the conditions for

remanding the petitioner to judicial custody. The present petition is

filed almost four months after the arrest and seeks to re-agitate

issues already argued before the Special Court. This shows that the

petition is not bona fide, but an attempt to seek bail by-passing the

statutory requirement under section 45 of the PMLA. The petitioner

has failed to demonstrate as to how the material relied upon by the

ED is extraneous or renders his arrest illegal. The learned ASG

submitted that at this stage, the Court cannot assess the quality of

the material in the reasons to believe. The offence of money

laundering is an independent offence and in any case, the petitioner

has been charged with a predicate offence of corruption under the

PC Act. Hence, there is no question of any reliefs being granted to

the petitioner. The learned ASG relied upon the judgments in “Vijay

Madanlal Choudhary” and also in “Radhika Agarwal v. Union of

India”

5

and sought for dismissal of the petition.

Reasons and Analysis:

9. We have perused the record and after hearing the learned

counsels for the parties at length, find no merit in this petition. The

scope of judicial review over arrest under the special statutes is

elucidated in the judgment of “Radhika Agarwal” wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power of ju dicial review

must be exercised cautiously and only in cases of m anifest

arbitrariness or gross non-compliance with statutory safeguards.

The relevant portions of the said judgment read as under:

5 (2025) 6 SCC 545

7/17

WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit

“92. It hardly needs to be reiterated that the power of judicial review over

the subjective satisfaction or opinion of the statutory authority would

have different facets depending on the facts and circumstances of each

case. The criteria or parameters of judicial review over the subjective

satisfaction applicable in service related cases, cannot be made

applicable to the cases of arrest made under the special Acts. The

scrutiny on the subjective opinion or satisfaction of the authorised

officer to arrest the person could not be a matter of judicial review,

inasmuch as when the arrest is made by the authorised officer on he

having been satisfied about the alleged commission of the offences

under the special Act, the matter would be at a very nascent stage of

the investigation or inquiry. The very use of the phrase “reasons to

believe” implies that the officer should have formed a prima facie

opinion or belief on the basis of the material in his possession that the

person is guilty or has committed the offence under the relevant special

Act. Sufficiency or adequacy of the material on the basis of which such

belief is formed by the authorised officer, would not be a matter of

scrutiny by the courts at such a nascent stage of in quiry or

investigation.

93. As held in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B.63, ordinarily arrest is a

part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes.

The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various

facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of crime and

the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be

circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to

discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in

order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to

protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to

prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the society,

etc. For these or such other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable

part of the process of investigation.

94. It is pertinent to note that the special Acts are enacted to achieve

specific purposes and objectives. The power of judicial review in cases

of arrest under such special Acts should be exercised very cautiously

and in rare circumstances to balance individual liberty with the interest

of justice and of the society at large. Any liberal approach in construing

the stringent provisions of the special Acts may frustrate the very

purpose and objective of the Acts. It hardly needs to be stated that the

offences under the PMLA or the Customs Act or FERA are the offences

of very serious nature affecting the financial systems and in turn the

sovereignty and integrity of the nation. The provisions contained in the

said Acts therefore must be construed in the manner w hich would

8/17

WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit

enhance the objectives of the Acts, and not frustrate the same. Frequent

or casual interference of the courts in the functioning of the authorised

officers who have been specially conferred with the powers to combat

the serious crimes, may embolden the unscrupulous elements to commit

such crimes and may not do justice to the victims, who in such cases

would be the society at large and the nation itself. With the

advancement in technology, the very nature of crimes has become more

and more intricate and complicated. Hence, minor procedural lapse on

the part of authorised officers may not be seen with magnifying glass

by the courts in exercise of the powers of judicial review, which may

ultimately end up granting undue advantage or benefit to the person

accused of very serious offences under the special Acts. Such offences

are against the society and against the nation at large, and cannot be

compared with the ordinary offences committed against an individual,

nor the accused in such cases be compared with the ac cused of

ordinary crimes.

95. Though, the power of judicial review keeps a check and balance on the

functioning of the public authorities and is exercised for better and more

efficient and informed exercise of their powers, such power has to be

exercised very cautiously keeping in mind that such exercise of power

of judicial review may not lead to judicial overreach, undermining the

powers of the statutory authorities. To sum up, the powers of judicial

review may not be exercised unless there is manifest arbitrariness or

gross violation or non-compliance of the statutory safeguards provided

under the special Acts, required to be followed by the authorised

officers when an arrest is made of a person prima facie guilty of or

having committed offence under the special Act.”

10. In the present case, the record reveals that due process

prescribed under the PMLA has been followed before arresting the

petitioner. While investigating into the illegalities at VVCMC, the

petitioner was examined on several occasions and hi s residences

were raided by the ED. On 23

rd

June 2025, the ED recorded reasons

and issued a show cause notice under section 8(1) of the PMLA. The

material gathered during investigation was shared w ith the

jurisdictional police under section 66(2) of the PMLA, culminating in

registration of FIR no.330 of 2025 on 1

st

August 2025. Upon arrest

on 13

th

August 2025, the petitioner was informed of the grounds of

9/17

WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit

arrest and reasons to believe under section 19 of the PMLA, where

he affixed his signature. He was produced before the Special Court,

initially remanded to police custody and thereafter to judicial

custody by the designated Court. Thus, there is no illegality in the

process followed while arresting the petitioner. The compliance with

statutory safeguards is specifically asserted in the counter-affidavit

dated 2

nd

December 2025 filed by the ED and the same is not

rebutted by any material by the petitioner.

11. We are unable to accept the petitioner’s contention that no

predicate offence is attributable to him in the first four FIRs and that

the fifth FIR dated 1

st

August 2025 under the PC Act is wholly

distinct and unconnected with the earlier offences. The four FIRs

against the builders/ developers between 2019 and 2 022 are

registered for the offences under sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC

which are all scheduled offences under the PMLA. Pursuant to the

orders of this Court, 41 illegal buildings were demolished in 2025.

The ECIR dated 21

st

February 2025 was registered on the basis of

these FIRs relating to large-scale illegal permissi ons and

constructions. During the course of investigation, statements of

various accused persons including developers, architects, liasioners

and VVCMC Officials were recorded. It was in the course of such

investigation that the petitioner’s role in relation to development

permissions and the illegal construction including on government

land came to light. Consequently, search and seizure operations

were conducted on 14

th

May 2025, 15

th

May 2025 and 3

rd

June

2025 at the petitioner’s premises in Mumbai and Hyd erabad,

resulting in discovery and seizure of Rs.8.23 crores in unaccounted

cash, diamond-studded jewellery valued at Rs.23.28 crores and

10/17

WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit

several documents pertaining to rental and lease ar rangements.

Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA defines “proceeds of crime” in expansive

terms to mean any property derived or obtained, di rectly or

indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled

offence. The Explanation to section 2(1)(u) clarifies that the proceeds

of crime includes property not only derived or obtained from the

scheduled offence but also any property which may d irectly or

indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity

relatable to the scheduled offence. The definition is wide and will

encompass a situation like the present one. If a person takes a

bribe, he acquires proceeds of crime. Therefore, prima facie the

recovery of unaccounted cash, jewellery and other incriminating

articles and the statement of witnesses recorded under section 50 of

the PMLA taken together provided sufficient foundati on for the

Arresting Officer to believe that the petitioner is prima facie guilty of

money laundering. The relevant grounds mentioned in the arrest

memo extracted below indicate that there is tangible material and

credible evidence of the involvement of the petitio ner in the

commission of predicate offence:

“GROUNDS OF ARREST FOR INVOKING SECTION 19 OF PMLA, 2002

FOR ARREST OF SHRI Y.S. REDDY IN ECIT/MBZO-II/10/2025

You, Y S REDDY, are hereby informed that during the ongoing inquiry

and investigation under PMLA by the Directorate of Enforcement, various

incriminating records (including the digital devices), Whatsapp Chats and

statements of various persons were taken on record, wherein it has been

revealed that:

1. You have deliberately and intentionally committed omission to

perform your lawful public duty and thereby actually involved in

acquisition, possession of several crores of the Proceeds of Crime

and thereafter its concealment and utilisation for your personal

benefit and enrichment.

11/17

WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit

2. You have organized a cartel of VVCMC officers, Junior Engineers,

Architects, Cas and Liasoners as Deputy Director Town Planning

and involved in an organized action plan to acquire the Proceeds of

crime by committing the illegal omission to perform his public duty

and thereafter granting development permission at fixed rate.

3. You have grossly misused your position as Deputy Dir ector Town

Planning of VVCMC, and was directly responsible for taking no

preventive actions so that illegal construction occu rs over

government/private land in the jurisdiction of VVCMC and has

taken the substantial amount of bribe money for keeping a blind

eye and taking no action over rampant illegal construc tion on

government/private land.

4. You have failed to give plausible explanation of Rs. 8.23 crore cash

seized from your premises during the course of search operation on

14.05.2025, 15.05.2025 and 03.06.2025.

5. You have failed to give plausible explanation of Diamond Studded

Jewellery worth Rs. 23.25 crore seized from your premises during

the course of search operation on 14.05.2025, 15.05.2025 and

03.06.2025.

6. You have acquired assets disproportionate to your known source of

income.

7. You have charged huge commission/bribe for granting various

development permissions required from VVCMC for start ing

different residential/commercial/other projects which was fixed at

the rate of Rs 10 per sq. ft of the built area of the project.

8. You have established and used an intricate codewor d system for

collection of commission/bribe amount from builders, Architects and

Local Liasoners in order to guise the enforcement agencies and to

conceal the movement Proceeds of crime.

9. You have acquired and possessed the proceeds of cri me in cash

and the said cash has been collected and delivered through VVCMC

officers, distant relatives and local liasoners.

10. You have not only acquired or possessed the proceeds of crime but

also concealed and project the same as untainted and integrated

the crime proceeds in the financial mainstream of the economy.

11. You hold the office as Deputy Director Town Planning of VVCMC,

VVCMC and in view of the authority and influence inherent to such

an offence you held, there exists a grave and reason able

apprehension that you may exercise undue influence, inducement,

or threat and coercion upon Builders, Architects, Liasoners and

12/17

WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit

officials of VVCMC. There is every likelihood that you by utilising

his official position will influence, induce and threaten the material

witnesses and co-accused persons, thereby impeding the further

course of investigation.

On the basis of aforesaid facts and circumstances an d material in

possession, I have reasons to believe that you have not only acquired,

possessed, concealed and utilized the proceeds of crime of several crores

of rupees, but also actually involved and knowingly assisted in layering

and laundering of proceeds of crime, and thus you are guilty of the

offence of money laundering as defined under section 3 of PML Act,

2022 punishable under section 4 of MPL Act, 2022.

Accordingly, there exists sufficient reasons to believe that your arrest is

necessary for various reasons as already detailed in the ‘reasons to

believe’ being served along with this ‘grounds of arrest’.

In view of the above and based on material in possession, I have reasons

to believe that you, Y S Reddy, are guilty of offence of the money

laundering under section 3 of PMLA, 2002, punishable under section 4 of

PMLA, 2002 and therefore, you arrest under Section 19(1) of PMLA is

warranted.

Sd/- 13/08/25

(Praduman Sharma)

Assistant Director

(Arresting Officer)

I have been intimated about the grounds of arrest at the time of my arrest

in adherence to the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and

Section 19(1) of PMLA and have also been made aware of my rights as

laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of D. K.

Basu Vs. West Bengal with regard to the rights of the arrested person.

Sd/- 13/8/25

(Signature of Y.S. Reddy)

Arrestee/Arrested person”

12. The ED arrived at a subjective satisfaction abou t the

commission of offence of money laundering based on the materials

against the petitioner which included the seizure of disproportionate

assets from the petitioner. The allegation is that the petitioner

calculated bribes file-wise and the proceeds of crime so generated

were disguised and concealed while purchasing jewellery and other

13/17

WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit

luxury items. A perusal of the reasons to believe indicates that the

same is based on the material in possession of the ED. At this stage,

it cannot be argued that the first four FIRs are not linked or inter-

connected to the fifth FIR. The offence under section 13 of the PC

Act registered against the petitioner is itself a scheduled offence. The

ED has set out in detail the grounds for arrest and the recorded

reasons to believe under section 19 of the PMLA based on the digital

devices and unaccounted cash/jewellery recovered fro m the

petitioner. The ED has recorded the statements of several persons

including the petitioner under section 50 of the PMLA which clearly

implicate him. The ED had sufficient tangible material to arrest the

petitioner. Therefore, merely because the petitioner has appeared

before the ED on twelve occasions this circumstance cannot be a

ground to hold that his arrest was illegal and to order his release.

13. The petitioner’s contention that prior arraignme nt of the

petitioner in the first four FIRs is necessary to attract the PMLA is

misconceived. Such a construction cannot be accepted as it would

defeat the statutory scheme of the PMLA. This law is well settled by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Vijay Madanlal Choudhary”, the

relevant portions of which read as under:

“134. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply

clear that the offence of money laundering is an independent

offence regarding the process or activity connected with the

proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a

result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled

offence. The process or activity can be in any form — be it one of

concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime

as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to

be so. Thus, involvement in any one of such process or activity

connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute offence of

money laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do

with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence —

except the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of

that crime.

14/17

WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit

135. Needless to mention that such process or activit y can be

indulged in only after the property is derived or obtained as a

result of criminal activity (a scheduled offence). It would be an

offence of money laundering to indulge in or to assist or being

party to the process or activity connected with the proceeds of

crime; and such process or activity in a given fact situation may

be a continuing offence, irrespective of the date and time of

commission of the scheduled offence. In other words , the

criminal activity may have been committed before the same had

been notified as scheduled offence for the purpose of the 2002

Act, but if a person has indulged in or continues to indulge

directly or indirectly in dealing with proceeds of crime, derived

or obtained from such criminal activity even after it has been

notified as scheduled offence, may be liable to be prosecuted for

offence of money laundering under the 2002 Act — for

continuing to possess or conceal the proceeds of crime (fully or

in part) or retaining possession thereof or uses it in trenches

until fully exhausted. The offence of money laundering is not

dependent on or linked to the date on which the sch eduled

offence, or if we may say so, the predicate offence has been

committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person

indulges in the process or activity connected with such proceeds

of crime.”

14. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner is not correct in

his submission that the “proceeds of crime” was quantified only in

the counter-affidavit and, therefore, the ED had no material in its

possession at the time of arrest. In our opinion, the existence of

material giving rise to a reason to believe that the petitioner is

involved in money laundering is the relevant consideration at the

stage of arrest. Quantification for the purpose of attachment or

adjudication may vary as investigation progresses. We may further

note that the petitioner was produced before the designated Court,

which upon consideration of the material remanded him to custody.

Thereafter, successive remand orders have been pass ed and the

present petition has been belatedly filed nearly four months after the

arrest. While it is correct that an illegal arrest may be challenged

notwithstanding remand orders, the Court must be sa tisfied of

15/17

WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit

patent illegality or non-compliance with statutory safeguards. No

such infirmity has been demonstrated in this case. The petitioner’s

reliance on “Anil Kumar’s” case is misplaced and easily

distinguishable on facts. In that case, Anil Kumar took charge of the

VVCMC in 2022, after the construction of the 41 illegal buildings. In

the search operations carried out by the ED, no tan gible or

incriminating material was found at that stage against Anil Kumar,

which would have established that an offence under the PMLA was

committed. The panchanama prepared by the ED record ed that after

a thorough and systematic search of his premises, no incriminating

document or unaccounted cash or electronic device w as found or

seized from the said premises. Whereas, in the pres ent case,

unaccounted cash and jewellery are recovered from the petitioner. In

our view, the present petition appears to be an attempt to bypass

the statutory mechanism of section 45 of the PMLA governing bail.

We have also bestowed our consideration to the subm issions

advanced before us relating to sufficiency of evide nce, nexus

between assets and alleged crime and credibility of section 50 of the

PMLA statements and What’sApp chats. However, we do not find a

prima facie case made out for interference. These matters generally

fall within the domain of trial or bail proceedings and an indepth

examination by this Court may cause prejudice to the parties.

15. For the above reasons, no case is made out for exercise of writ

jurisdiction to declare the arrest of the petitioner illegal or to quash

the remand orders. Writ Petition No.5843 of 2025 is devoid of merits

and is dismissed. It is clarified that the observations made herein

are confined to adjudication of this writ petition and shall not

prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in any

16/17

WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit

proceedings before the trial Court including bail application, as and

when filed by the petitioner.

[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] [ CHIEF JUSTICE ]

17/17

WP-5843-2025.doc Dixit

SNEHA

ABHAY

DIXIT

Digitally

signed by

SNEHA

ABHAY DIXIT

Date:

2026.03.10

10:13:53

+0530