Congress MLA K C Veerendra Puppy’s wife challenged the basis of his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) before the Karnataka High Court, alleging “non-application of mind” by the central agency, and raised questions over an alleged lack of notice for summons issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The arguments in the matter were heard on Wednesday and Thursday by a single-judge bench of Justice M I Arun.
Puppy was arrested in Gangtok, Sikkim, on August 23 pursuant to an Enforcement Case Information Report against him, with the ED stating that he was running several gambling sites. The arrest came after the central agency conducted searches at 31 locations linked to him and his associates, including five casinos, and seized cash, gold, silver, and vehicles worth crores.
In her petition, Puppy’s wife, R D Chaitra, sought that his arrest be declared illegal and violative of his fundamental rights, and that he be released. In the interim pending this final order, it also requested a stay on his arrest and his release from custody.
Arguing before the high court, Chaitra’s counsel, senior advocate Siddharth Dave, stated, “I am an elected member of the Legislative Assembly in Karnataka. I will have a residence in Bangalore or the place I am elected in, attending Legislative Assembly, my addresses will be known to all and sundry…”.
Claiming that there was “non-application of mind” in the grounds of arrest, he said, “I am arrested from Sikkim. I am not present here when the raids are taking place and they say I have not cooperated by not giving statements…”.
Dave also raised questions regarding a lack of notice for summons issued under Section 50 (powers of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence, etc.) of the PMLA. “Ordinarily, the ED issues notice to the person under Section 50….in the present case, not one notice or summons was issued under Section 50…if the power of arrest is vested in them, they have to exercise it within the four corners of the law,” he said.
Story continues below this ad
He also stated that what was described in the grounds of arrest was not connected to the earlier FIRs based on which the ECIR was issued.
“There is nothing in the counter that is before Your Lordship–not a single summons that has been annexed, not a single document that the investigating officer records that I have evaded, not appeared etc…..what is on record is orders by lower court and the FIRs etc,” Dave stated.
The matter is set to be heard further on September 17.