The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot arrest an accused under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) once a special court has taken cognisance of the money laundering complaint. The decision came from a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.

The court clarified that if an accused appears before the special court in response to a summons, the ED must seek custody through the court, rather than directly arresting the individual. "When the accused appears before the special court by summons, it cannot be considered that he is in custody," the bench stated.

Additionally, the court emphasized that an accused who complies with a court summons is not required to apply for bail. Consequently, the stringent twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA do not apply in such situations. These conditions stipulate that for an accused to be granted bail in a money laundering case, the court must first hear the public prosecutor and be convinced that the accused is not guilty of the offense and unlikely to commit a similar offense if released.

The Supreme Court's judgment addressed the critical question of whether the stringent twin tests for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA apply when a special court has already taken cognisance of the offence. The ruling clarifies that these conditions are not applicable when an accused appears in court as summoned, thus simplifying the process for those accused in money laundering cases who have already been called to court.

In summary, the Supreme Court's ruling ensures that once a special court takes cognisance of a money laundering complaint, the ED must seek the court’s approval for custody of the accused, who is not automatically required to seek bail, bypassing the strict conditions previously imposed.

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot arrest an accused under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) once a special court has taken cognisance of the money laundering complaint. The decision came from a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.

The court clarified that if an accused appears before the special court in response to a summons, the ED must seek custody through the court, rather than directly arresting the individual. "When the accused appears before the special court by summons, it cannot be considered that he is in custody," the bench stated.

Additionally, the court emphasized that an accused who complies with a court summons is not required to apply for bail. Consequently, the stringent twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA do not apply in such situations. These conditions stipulate that for an accused to be granted bail in a money laundering case, the court must first hear the public prosecutor and be convinced that the accused is not guilty of the offense and unlikely to commit a similar offense if released.

The Supreme Court's judgment addressed the critical question of whether the stringent twin tests for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA apply when a special court has already taken cognisance of the offence. The ruling clarifies that these conditions are not applicable when an accused appears in court as summoned, thus simplifying the process for those accused in money laundering cases who have already been called to court.

In summary, the Supreme Court's ruling ensures that once a special court takes cognisance of a money laundering complaint, the ED must seek the court’s approval for custody of the accused, who is not automatically required to seek bail, bypassing the strict conditions previously imposed.