Supreme Court pulls up ED for questioning accused at 3 AM

The Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for interrogating a money laundering accused during the wee hours of the morning [Ram Kotumal Issrani v. Enforcement Directorate & Anr]..A Vacation Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan clarified that it is not on the merits of the allegations against the accused man but on larger concerns. "On the other side, without going to merits, what is this happening? You call him at 10:30 AM then we are ok with it, but you are doing it at 3:30 AM. How is this going on? We are not on merits but this is on general perspective," Justice Viswanathan remarked..The Court was hearing a plea by a 64-year-old businessman, Ram Issrani, who had challenged his arrest by the ED during odd hours, after questioning that lasted through the night.The Bombay High Court had earlier refused to quash his arrest and remand, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court for relief.Last month, the Supreme Court asked the ED to respond in the matter. Issrani was also granted liberty to move the Vacation Bench of the top court for bail. During today's hearing, the Court said it would not consider the question of any interim order for the present but would hear the case on merits after the summer break. The matter was, thus, adjourned till July..Issrani was arrested last year in connection with a bank fraud case.He claimed that on August 7 and 8 last year, he was made to wait in the office of the ED, after which his statement was recorded from 10:30 PM to 3:00 AM. He submitted that he was kept awake for a total of 20 hours and was shown to be arrested at 5:30 AM on August 8.Though the High Court had refused to quash the arrest, it had taken exception to how the ED recorded the statements of witnesses and the accused at unearthly hours.It had directed the ED to issue a circular or directions regarding timings for recording statements.The High Court also reiterated that an investigation by ED officers stood on a different footing from an investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it was deemed to be a judicial proceeding.