High Court Slams ED For 15 Hour Interrogation Of Haryana Congress MLA In PMLA Case
The court observed the ED should take remedial measures and sensitize its officers to follow reasonable time limit for investigation against suspects in such cases.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday slammed the Enforcement Directorate for interrogating an accused in a money laundering case for nearly 15 hours while setting aside the arrest. Sonepat MLA and Congress candidate Surender Panwar was arrested by the ED in July in connection with an illegal mining case.
Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu said ED's interrogating of Panwar for 14 hours and 40 minutes in July was "not heroic" on the part of the agency and "rather against the dignity of a human being.".
The court observed the ED should take remedial measures and sensitise its officers to follow reasonable time limits for investigation against suspects in such cases.
"To be precise, it would be appreciated if some necessary mechanism is put in place for a fair investigation of the accused as per basic human rights laid down by the United Nations Organisation (UNO), instead of meting out unnecessary harassment for such a longer duration at one stretch for a given day," the order said.
In a detailed judgement, the high court said the accused has not been found involved in any illegal activity attracting the offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the initial arrest as well as grounds of arrest have been found to be unsustainable in law.
Panwar's lawyer argued that the ED employed a "pick-and-choose" approach in arresting him, despite the presence of multiple accused in the case. They claimed the agency's focus on Panwar was politically driven, especially with upcoming Haryana Assembly elections and his status as a sitting MLA.
In response, the ED’s counsel countered that there is substantial evidence, including documents and statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, demonstrating a clear connection between Panwar and other co-accused in illegal mining activities.
Justice Sindhu noted that the ED's case largely relied on allegations of illegal mining involving fabricated e-rawana bills. He pointed out that Panwar was not named in the first eight FIRs and had not been implicated in the ninth.
The judge further clarified that while illegal mining is an offence under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act of 1957, it does not qualify as a scheduled offence under the PMLA, which prevents prosecution on those grounds.
