How can habeas corpus plea to release Senthil Balaji be allowed when he is in judicial custody? Madras High Court

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal told the Madras High Court on Tuesday that the sessions court had erred in granting custody of Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji to the Enforcement Directorate (ED)..Sibal, who appeared for Balaji's wife S Megala, made the submission before Justice CV Karthikeyan, the third judge appointed by Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala to hear the points of differences following a split verdict on the habeas corpus petition filed by Megala. The veteran lawyer argued that while Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) empowered the ED to arrest an accused after its inquiry, the central agency had no power to seek custodial interrogation of such accused person. "The PMLA falls into another category altogether. It has to be interpreted in the context of its unique provisions. PMLA is an unique Act. It is a complete statute on its own. The Supreme Court said that ED officers are not police officers and PMLA is a regulatory statute. They have no powers of investigation other than Section 15, and Section 15 has been interpreted by the Court that there is no investigation...The order of custodial interrogation is bad in law. It can't be ordered at any stage," he said..The Court then said that it agreed that the issue of custodial interrogation had to be addressed. However, given that Balaji was currently in judicial custody, the Court pondered over the survival of the habeas corpus plea."I am asking how can he be released today when he is as on date in judicial custody? How can a direction be issued to produce the body of the person? Can ED tell the Sessions Judge you have no power, bring him here and set him at liberty?" the judge asked..Sibal, however, said that the point of his argument was that the PMLA merely empowered the ED to conduct an inquiry and to arrest an accused if it believed it had adequate reason for such arrest. While after such arrest, the ED could continue securing evidence, it had no power to investigate the accused by taking him into police custody. "This is not an arrest under the CrPC. There is no question of custody and subsequent investigation by ED. And as far as the issue of custody is concerned, all they have to do is go and remove their security (from the private hospital where Balaji is currently recuperating)," Sibal said. The senior lawyer further told the Court that if the ED did not have the power of custodial interrogation, the issue of interrogation after the first 15 days, and the exclusion of the period of Senthilbalaji's hospital stay from his custody period may not be looked into..The Court will hear arguments of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on behalf of the ED on Wednesday, July 12..The High Court recently held that a habeas corpus plea would be maintainable even after an order of remand is passed by the magistrate, if there is absolute illegality in the arrest of the concerned person.This ruling came in the High Court's split verdict in the petition filed for the release of Balaji, who was arrested by the ED in a money laundering case.However, while the two judges on the Bench - Justices Nisha Banu and D Bharatha Chakravarthy - agreed on the aspect of maintainability, they differed on the issue of the powers of the ED to seek custody of an arrested person.While Justice Banu ruled that the Minister’s arrest by the ED was illegal, Justice Chakravarthy differed and held that there had been no illegality or misuse of law in Balaji’s arrest and, therefore, the habeas corpus petition was not maintainable..After both judges pronounced their respective orders, Justice Banu directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for further orders.