New Delhi: The Delhi High Court quashed the arrest of two people, noting that the Delhi Police Crime Branch arrest memos don’t mention the grounds of arrest but only the reasons for arrest. The high court noted that it wasn’t in compliance with the requirements laid down by the Supreme Court, drawing a clear distinction between the two.
“In the opinion of this court, what has been set out in the Delhi Police arrest memos are not ‘grounds of arrest’ but only ‘reasons for arrest’,” Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said, adding that arrest memos don’t spell out the alleged roles of the petitioners and also don’t refer to any specific incriminating circumstances.
The petitioners—Manideep Mago and Sanjay Sethi—argued that their arrest over allegations of money laundering and selling cryptocurrencies by the Delhi Police Crime Branch was “illegal”, relying on the top court’s judgment in the 2024 case linked to NewsClick founder and editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha. They noted that the grounds of arrest were never provided to the petitioners in writing.
“The petitioners have highlighted the fact that in the said verdict, the Supreme Court has held that ‘reasons for arrest‟ are different and distinct from ‘grounds of arrest‟ and communicating the grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee is mandatory, failing which the arrest is rendered illegal,” says the order, released Thursday.
In May last year, the Supreme Court ordered the release of Purkayastha, calling his arrest in a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act case, “invalid” in the eyes of the law as the Delhi Police failed to communicate the grounds of his arrest either to him or his lawyer.
At the time, the apex court said, the “reasons for arrest” are purely formal parameters such as to prevent the accused person from committing any further offences or for proper investigation of the offence, among others. ‘Grounds of arrest’, on the other hand, are personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’.
In this case, the petitioners filed pleas before the high court, challenging their arrest by the Enforcement Directorate and the Delhi Police. Initially, a case was lodged against the company, Birfa IT, under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). The Delhi Police lodged an FIR under IPC sections for criminal conspiracy, cheating, among others.
The high court, however, also noted that the enactment of FEMA does not grant immunity for offences committed under the IPC. “FEMA and IPC address different and distinct infractions of the law: with FEMA addressing infractions relating to foreign exchange transactions and the IPC dealing with conventional crimes,” the court noted.
Moreover, the court also noted that the petitioners’ arguments that they were arrested by the ED for “merely for non-cooperation in investigation, is misconceived and must be rejected”.
(Edited by Sanya Mathur)
Also Read: NewsClick founder not informed of ‘grounds of arrest’, ‘clandestine’ exercise — what SC order said