Supreme Court rules against ED arresting accused once special court takes cognizance of PMLA complaint

Supreme Court
the Supreme Court unanimously upheld access to mifepristone, a medication crucial in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. last year. The decision comes as a blow to abortion opponents who lacked legal standing to challenge the FDA's approval of mifepristone and subsequent efforts to increase its accessibility.

The recent Supreme Court ruling restricts the Enforcement Directorate from arresting accused individuals under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act once a Special Court has taken cognizance of the case. This landmark verdict questions the stringent bail conditions imposed on those facing money laundering charges, sparking legal debates and setting new precedents in criminal proceedings.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has put a check on the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) power to arrest an accused under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) after the Special Court takes cognizance of the case.

Now, if the ED wants custody of an accused post-cognizance, they must first seek permission from the Special Court. This decision raises questions on whether an accused in a money laundering case should face strict bail conditions even after the court acknowledges the offense.

The legal complexities in this case stem from a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling that had denied pre-arrest bail to those accused in a money laundering case linked to an alleged land scam involving revenue officials.

Back in January, the Supreme Court had provided interim protection to the accused in this particular case. It’s worth noting that the apex court had previously struck down Section 45(1) of the PMLA in November 2017, only for it to be reinstated later with amendments.

One of the crucial aspects under consideration was whether furnishing a bond under Section 88 of the CrPC amounts to seeking bail under Section 45 of the PMLA. The case in question, titled Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office, had the accused seeking anticipatory bail after appearing in court but being denied due to not meeting the bail conditions outlined in Section 45 of the PMLA.

ये भी पढ़े:  Supreme Court upholds access to abortion pill Mifepristone with unanimous decision

The focus of the Supreme Court’s decision was on defining the ED’s authority to make arrests post-cognizance by the Special Court in cases falling under the PMLA. This ruling is likely to have far-reaching implications in cases involving money laundering allegations and the subsequent legal procedures that follow.

Read also :World Hypertension Day 2024 :Beware of the Silent Signs of High Blood Pressure

Trishla Tyagi
Trishla Tyagi

Trishla is a news writer and social media aficionado. She has substantial experience in covering updates, events, and news related to the different space, along with rapidly expanding blockchain and financial technology markets. Her experience in the cryptocurrency market has led her to become a crypto hodler herself.

Related Posts