1. Metadata
Case Name: Anto Paul Prakash v. Directorate of Enforcement
Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Citation: B.A. No. 6102 of 2025; 2025:KER:66624
Bench: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Petitioner: Anto Paul Prakash (Accused No. 3)
Respondent: Directorate of Enforcement
Date of Judgment: 9 September 2025
2. Introduction
This case is a bail application filed before the High Court of Kerala in a matter involving charges of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate as the third accused in an investigation into a pan-India extortion and money laundering racket alleged to have been perpetrated through illegal Chinese mobile applications. The central legal question in the application was whether the failure of the arresting officer to communicate the grounds of arrest to a near relative of the petitioner, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, rendered the arrest illegal and entitled the petitioner to bail, notwithstanding the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The case also raised the important constitutional question of whether the principle established by Supreme Court judgments on the obligation to communicate arrest grounds to a near relative operates retrospectively, so as to apply to arrests made before those judgments were delivered. The High Court’s ruling provides a nuanced analysis of constitutional rights, arrest procedures, and the retroactive application of Supreme Court decisions.
3. Summary of Facts
The petitioner, Anto Paul Prakash, was arrested on 30 January 2025 by the Enforcement Directorate, Kochi, as Accused No. 3 in ECIR/KCZO/06/2024. The arrest was made in connection with an investigation into a pan-India extortion and money laundering racket allegedly operated through illegal Chinese mobile applications. The scheme was alleged to involve forcing these applications on social media platforms, using them to extract sensitive personal information including contacts, images, and documents from mobile phone users, and then deploying that information to extort money from victims. The extorted funds were alleged to have been laundered through a network of “mule accounts.”
The petitioner applied for bail primarily on procedural and constitutional grounds. His legal representatives contended that the arrest was rendered illegal by the failure of the Enforcement Directorate to communicate the grounds of arrest to any near relative of the petitioner, which is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The Enforcement Directorate opposed the bail application, asserting that the petitioner had personally been informed of the grounds of arrest and had acknowledged receipt in writing. The Directorate further argued that the legal obligation to communicate arrest grounds to a near relative was a principle established by the Supreme Court only after the date of the petitioner’s arrest, and therefore could not be applied retrospectively to his case.
4. Issues Before the Court
Issue 1: Whether the non-communication of the grounds of arrest to a near relative of the petitioner constituted a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, rendering the arrest illegal and entitling the petitioner to bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Issue 2: Whether the principle established by Supreme Court judgments requiring communication of arrest grounds to a near relative of the arrested person operates retrospectively so as to apply to arrests made before those judgments were delivered.
5. Arguments by Both Parties
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that the Enforcement Directorate had violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India by failing to inform any near relative of the petitioner of the grounds for his arrest. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which establish that communication of arrest grounds to a near relative is a mandatory, non-negotiable constitutional right. The petitioner submitted that mere intimation of the fact of arrest to a near relative does not discharge this obligation; the grounds themselves must be communicated. This fundamental procedural failure, it was argued, vitiated the arrest and entitled the petitioner to bail notwithstanding Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Arguments of the Respondent:
The Enforcement Directorate countered that the grounds of arrest had been communicated to the petitioner himself, as evidenced by his signed acknowledgment on Annexure R1(b) at 22:11 hours on 30 January 2025. The Directorate contended that satisfaction of this individual communication obligation was sufficient for the purposes of Article 22(1). Further, the Directorate argued that the specific principle regarding communication to a near relative was articulated by the Supreme Court in judgments delivered after the date of the petitioner’s arrest and therefore could not apply retrospectively to his case. The stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were also cited as a bar to the grant of bail.
6. Reasonings and Findings
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas of the High Court of Kerala granted the bail application, directing the release of the petitioner on the basis of a substantive constitutional violation in the manner of his arrest. The court acknowledged the prima facie case against the petitioner but held that it was constitutionally bound to prioritise the scrutiny of the procedural violation.
On the question of communication to the petitioner, the court accepted, on a review of the evidence including Annexure R1(b), that the grounds of arrest had been communicated to the petitioner himself in writing, satisfying that aspect of the Article 22(1) requirement. However, the court carefully distinguished between two distinct components of the constitutional obligation: mere intimation of the fact of arrest to a near relative, and communication of the grounds of arrest to a near relative. The court held that the Enforcement Directorate had discharged only the former and had failed to establish the latter.
The court next addressed the retroactivity argument. Drawing on the settled principle that judgments of the Supreme Court declaring the law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India are retrospective in operation, the court held that the principle mandating communication of arrest grounds to a near relative was not a new rule but a declaration of the pre-existing law under Article 22(1). It was therefore applicable to the petitioner’s arrest of 30 January 2025, notwithstanding that the specific Supreme Court judgments articulating this principle were delivered thereafter.
In light of the established constitutional violation, the court held that the stringent twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were not a bar to bail in a case where the foundational arrest itself was constitutionally infirm. The court accordingly directed the release of the petitioner subject to appropriate conditions.
7. Judgment and Conclusion
The High Court of Kerala allowed the bail application in B.A. No. 6102 of 2025 and directed the release of the petitioner, Anto Paul Prakash, on bail. The court held that the Enforcement Directorate had failed to communicate the grounds of arrest to a near relative of the petitioner, in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The court further held that this constitutional obligation is of retrospective operation, being a declaration of pre-existing constitutional law. The decision reaffirms that even under the stringent bail regime of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, procedural violations of constitutional rights during arrest can entitle an accused to bail, underscoring the primacy of constitutional safeguards over investigative convenience.
8. Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. What does Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India guarantee?
Article 22(1) guarantees two rights to every person arrested: first, the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible; and second, the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice. The Supreme Court has held that communicating grounds of arrest is a mandatory, non-negotiable constitutional requirement that applies to all arrests, including those made under special statutes such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Q2. Is it sufficient to communicate arrest grounds only to the accused person?
The High Court distinguished between communication to the arrested person and communication to a near relative. While communication to the accused person is one requirement, the court held that Article 22(1) also requires that the grounds of arrest be communicated to a near relative. Merely informing a near relative of the fact of the arrest, without communicating the grounds, does not satisfy this constitutional obligation.
Q3. Why are Supreme Court judgments said to operate retrospectively?
Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts throughout India. The established principle is that a judgment of the Supreme Court declaring the law does not create new law but merely declares what the law has always been. Therefore, such declarations are applied retrospectively to facts that arose before the judgment, unless the court itself limits its operation prospectively.
Q4. What are the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002?
Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 imposes stringent conditions on the grant of bail. The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that the accused is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. These conditions make bail significantly harder to obtain in PMLA cases than under the general law. However, the High Court held that an unconstitutional arrest overrides these conditions.
Q5. Can a person charged with money laundering obtain bail on procedural grounds?
Yes, as this case demonstrates. Where the arrest itself is vitiated by a constitutional infirmity, such as a failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to a near relative as required by Article 22(1), courts have held that bail may be granted irrespective of the otherwise stringent conditions imposed by Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Constitutional protections cannot be overridden by statutory provisions.
