/wion/media/agency_attachments/2024/12/26/2024-12-26t112006978z-wion-white-logo-for-website-2-1.png){kind=logo}
/wion/media/agency_attachments/2024/12/13/2024-12-13t071548098z-wionlogo.webp)
/wion/media/member_avatars/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/2024/09/26/456938-author-profilr.png)
/wion/media/post_attachments/files/2024/03/21/419957-untitled-design-6.png)
New Delhi, India
Following a night of interrogation, a 64-year-old businessman challenged his arrest by the central agency during odd hours. The Supreme Court demanded the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) answer to his plea.
The petitioner was also granted permission to move the vacation benches for bail by a bench consisting of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra.
"Give notice, with a three-week return period. Dasti notice on the Standing Counsel through the Central Agency Section, in addition," the order said.
A 64-year-old businessman named Ram Issrani filed a plea with the court accusing the ED of unlawfully detaining him in connection with an alleged bank fraud case.
He stated that he was forced to wait in the ED's office on August 7 and 8, 2018, following that from 10:30 pm to 3:00 am, his statement was recorded. He said that he was kept awake for 20 hours in all and that he was detained on August 8 at 5:30 am. The Bombay High Court declined to invalidate the arrest and remand, leading to the instant appeal.
Also read: What is the Enforcement Directorate? What are its recent high profile cases?
Though the High Court refused to overturn the arrest, it did object to the central agency recording testimonies of witnesses and accused at unusual hours, which resulted in sleep deprivation.
The Court had instructed the ED to publish a circular or instructions about when to record statements after a summons for interrogation is sent out.
It reaffirmed that, because it was considered a judicial procedure, an investigation conducted by ED personnel was conducted on a different basis than an inquiry conducted in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It was brought up before the Supreme Court that the petitioner was not brought before a magistrate right away after being taken into custody.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, together with Advocates Vijay Agarwal, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Kajal Dalal, and EC Agrawala, represented the businessman before the Supreme Court.
(With inputs from agencies)