2023 (3 ) ALT (Crl.) 223 (A.P.), 2023 (6 )BLJ(SC )66 , 2023 (4 )Crimes61 (SC ), 2023 INSC 866 , (2023 )212 PLR535 , 2023 (4 )RCR(Criminal)446 , [2024 ]181 SCL73 (SC ), 2023 (2 )UC1973 , ,MANU/SC/1076/2023A.S. Bopanna#P.V. Sanjay Kumar#225SC3020Judgment/OrderAIC#ALLMR (Criminal)#ALT (Criminal)#BLJ#Crimes#INSC#MANU#PLR#RCR (Criminal)#SCL#UCP.V. Sanjay Kumar,SUPREME COURT OF INDIAAnticipatory Bail#Bribery#Commission of the Offence#Constitutional Validity#Economic Offence#Habeas Corpus#Suppression#Tampering With2023-10-458044,57731,57732,57735,57737,15913,16630,58071,58072,58026,58095,16593,16920,58092,58078,16917 -->

MANU/SC/1076/2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 3051-3052 of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9220-21 of 2023) and Criminal Appeal Nos. 3053-3054 of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9275-76 of 2023)

Decided On: 03.10.2023

Appellants: Pankaj Bansal Vs. Respondent: Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.S. Bopanna and P.V. Sanjay Kumar

JUDGMENT

P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the orders dated 20.07.2023 and 26.07.2023 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissing CWP No. 14536 of 2023 filed by Pankaj Bansal and CWP No. 14539 of 2023 filed by his father, Basant Bansal. By the order dated 20.07.2023, the Division Bench opined that, as the constitutional validity of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for brevity, 'the Act of 2002'), had been upheld by the Supreme Court, the challenge to the same by the writ Petitioners could not be considered only because of the fact that a review petition was pending before the Supreme Court. The prayer of the writ Petitioners to that effect was accordingly rejected. By the later order dated 26.07.2023, the Division Bench rejected the prayer of the writ Petitioners to quash/set aside their arrest orders along with their arrest memos and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the orders dated 15.06.2023, 20.06.2023 and 26.06.2023 passed by the learned Vacation Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, whereby they were remanded to the custody of the Directorate of Enforcement (for brevity, 'the ED') and thereafter, to judicial custody. The Division Bench further held that, keeping in view the gravity of the allegations against them, their prayer to be released from custody did not deserve acceptance and rejected the same. In consequence, the Division Bench dismissed both the writ petitions. Hence, these appeals by Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal.

3. The genesis of these appeals is traceable to FIR No. 0006 dated 17.04.2023 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Panchkula, Haryana, Under Sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code fo........