Shilpi Nama
On April 22, 2025 the Supreme Court noted that PMLA safeguards are being misapplied by accused persons in straightforward IPC cases. The provision of grounds for arrest to individuals charged under specific legislation such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), are being exploited by defendants to assert such rights even in clear cases of violations under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A bench consisting of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih noted that defendants in are citing the absence of arrest grounds as a reason to file writ petitions in High Courts, instead of seeking bail applications. The Court emphasized the necessity of distinguishing between the grounds for arrest applicable to special statutes and those relevant to the IPC.
Justice Gavai articulated, ‘We do not wish for authorities to abuse their powers, nor do we want defendants to exploit our observations to gain advantages under Section 438 or to invoke Article 226. The critical question is whether an individual apprehended in the act should be afforded the benefit of the grounds of arrest issue.’
He further highlighted the importance of differentiating the provision of grounds for arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) from those pertaining to IPC offences. In this context, the question arose: ‘Will an arrest be deemed invalid due to non-compliance with Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)?’ According to Section 50 of the CrPC, any police officer or person making an arrest without a warrant is required to immediately inform the individual being arrested of the specific details of the offense or the reasons for the arrest.
The Court was reviewing a series of petitions, including one submitted by Mihir Shah, the defendant in the Worli BMW hit-and-run incident in July 2024, which led to a woman being fatally injured. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Shah, asserted that a ‘hard case’ such as this should not render the law ineffective.
Advocate Shri Singh, serving as an Amicus Curiae, emphasized the necessity of distinguishing between general crimes and offenses under specific statutes. Conversely, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, involved in a related matter, argued that the legal principles established in Pankaj Bansal are binding under Article 141 and extend beyond the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The Court illustrated its point by referencing a hypothetical scenario where an individual who has killed ten people claims that the grounds for arrest should be provided prior to their detention. Ultimately, the Court announced that it would issue a notice on the issue to clarify the legal standing.
Advocate Karl Rustomkhan, representing a related petition, argued that Article 22 guarantees the provision of grounds for arrest. He stated, ‘This court in Prabir Purkayastha determined that the wording in Article 22(1) and 22(5) concerning the provision of grounds for arrest is identical… The Court affirmed that this right is fundamental and cannot be violated,’ Rustomkhan contended.
Case Title: Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 17132/2024
Bench: Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih
Instagram: Click here.
LinkedIn: Click here.
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com
