Lalit Goyal, Managing Director of Ireo Group, was granted bail on October 13 after the special PMLA court in Haryana highlighted breaches by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during his arrest. The decision came in the wake of a recent Supreme Court ruling that granted bail to M3M directors, emphasizing adherence to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) provisions during arrests. Goyal's defence pinpointed ED's neglect in informing him of the grounds for his arrest, a contention backed by the court's findings. The case underlines the judiciary's stance on ensuring rights and procedures during detentions.
Lalit Goyal, the Managing Director (MD) of Ireo Group, secured bail on October 13 following a keen scrutiny by the special judge of the PMLA court, Haryana. The judge's 17-page order examined purported breaches connected to Goyal's arrest by the enforcement directorate, using recent Supreme Court rulings as a reference.
On October 3, the apex court allowed bail for M3M directors Basant Bansal and Pankaj Bansal from Gurugram. The Bansals had questioned the enforcement directorate’s (ED) methodology in their arrest. Significantly, the Supreme Court underscored the infringement of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). This section stresses adherence to specific formalities regarding the apprehension of an accused.
On June 13, ED arrested Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal by registering the ECIR (Enforcement Directorate Information Report) on the basis of an FIR registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) in April. On July 4, the ED arrested Lalit Goyal, MD of Ireo group. Goyal applied for bail on medical grounds, which was dismissed in August. However, after the Supreme Court verdict on Bansals’ plea, Goyal moved bail for the second time.
Central to the defence’s argument was a perceived negligence on part of the ED during Goyal's arrest on July 4, 2023. The counsel emphasized that the ED disregarded Section 19 of the PMLA, as Goyal was neither informed about the reason behind his arrest nor provided with a written account of it.
The judge further critiqued the ED's defence, which claimed that the arrest reasons were verbally communicated to Goyal in front of two witnesses, and then documented, even though Goyal declined to endorse it. The judge emphasized, that merely reading the grounds doesn't align with the explicit directives of the Supreme Court, which mandates the provision of a written document detailing the reasons for arrest in every situation, without exceptions.
In conclusion, the recent decision by the Supreme Court concerning the Bansals did set a precedent that influenced the outcome for Lalit Goyal. It underscores the importance of proper legal procedure and adherence to rights during arrests, holding enforcement agencies accountable for their actions.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
