Mumbai, Oct 28: The Bombay High Court has declared the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) arrest of Jitendra Pandey in a money-laundering case illegal and directed his release forthwith, holding that the agency arrested him on material it already held, without fresh incriminating circumstances, JurisHour and RawLaw reported. The judgment, delivered on October 27 in Writ Petition No. 3476 of 2026 by Justice Milind N. Jadhav, held the arrest violative of Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA) and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Source: JurisHour
The court set aside the remand orders dated June 23, June 29 and July 4, 2026, along with subsequent remand orders covered by the relief granted, and directed Pandey's release on an authenticated copy of the judgment downloaded from the Bombay High Court website. The ED's request for a two-week stay on the order was declined. The case arises from ED case ECIR/MBZO-I/53/2023.
According to the reports, the judgment records the ED counsel's admission that no new incriminating material or development had emerged during the relevant period preceding the arrest. The court noted Pandey's extensive cooperation, reflected in his recorded statements, and that the agency had repeatedly sought permission to continue examining him under Section 50 of the PMLA on the very material already held, yet arrested him without identifying a new compelling necessity.
Justice Jadhav emphasised that Section 19 uses the expression 'may arrest', making the power discretionary, and that its exercise requires justification under the statutory safeguards governing the formation of 'reasons to believe'. Characterising the resort to arrest in these circumstances as a colourable exercise of power, the court held that the seriousness of the alleged offence did not by itself justify the arrest, and referred to Supreme Court decisions including Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement and Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India.
Source: RawLaw
LiveLaw's report on the judgment likewise said the ED could not abandon the Section 50 questioning process it had sought permission for and arrest Pandey on the same material, and that such an arrest could be justified only if fresh incriminating material or supervening circumstances emerged subsequently.
Source: LiveLawBiz
The High Court ruled on the validity of Pandey's arrest and remand only. It did not determine whether the underlying money-laundering allegations against him are proved; those allegations remain allegations to be tested in the case.