The Apex Court was hearing a petition filed by a 64-year-old businessman, Ram Issrani, who accused the ED of illegally arresting him in an alleged bank fraud case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court stirred a legal debate by calling upon the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to respond to a plea lodged by a businessman contesting his arrest by the central agency, particularly emphasizing the peculiar circumstances of his apprehension during odd hours following an exhaustive interrogation session that persisted throughout the night.
In response to the petition filed by 64-year-old businessman Ram Issrani, who accused the ED of unlawfully detaining him in connection with an alleged bank fraud case, a Bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra has not only solicited the ED’s reply but has also granted the petitioner the freedom to seek bail from vacation benches.
The court’s order, as articulated, underscores its directive:
“Issue notice, returnable in three weeks. Dasti notice on the Standing Counsel through the Central Agency Section, in addition.”
Issrani’s narrative unfolds a saga of prolonged waiting hours at the ED office on August 7 and 8 of the preceding year, culminating in the recording of his statement from 10:30 PM to 3:00 AM, a duration spanning a taxing 20 hours, only to find himself officially arrested at 5:30 AM on August 8.
Despite an unsuccessful attempt to challenge the arrest and remand in the Bombay High Court, which led to the subsequent appeal, the High Court didn’t overlook the irregularity surrounding the timing of interrogations by the central agency, expressing concern over the deprivation of sleep endured by individuals subjected to such procedures during unearthly hours.
Notably, the High Court’s stance emphasized the need for the ED to establish a framework, either through a circular or specific directives, governing the timing of statement recordings upon summons for interrogation, recognizing the distinct nature of ED investigations as judicial proceedings, distinct from those under the purview of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the courtroom, attention was drawn to the alleged procedural lapse wherein the petitioner wasn’t promptly presented before a Magistrate post-arrest, prompting further scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding the businessman’s apprehension and subsequent legal proceedings.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on ED
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
