PRAYAGRAJ, June 4 -- The Allahabad high court has declared the arrests of businessman Anwar Dhebar and former IAS officer Anil Tuteja as illegal in connection with a money laundering case linked to the alleged Rs.2,000 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam. A division bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Madan Pal Singh granted them bail, stating that the arrest memos failed to mention any grounds for detention and the accused were not informed of the reasons for their arrest. "The arrest of the petitioner be declared illegal and all subsequent arrest memos be quashed and also the remand orders be set aside," the court observed in its May 30 order. It noted that the mandatory provisions under Section 50 of the CrPC (now Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita) and Article 22(1) of the Constitution had not been followed. The FIR in the matter was registered in Meerut on July 30, 2023, under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. Despite securing bail from the Chhattisgarh high court at 9:20 pm on June 18, 2024, Anwar Dhebar was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Police at 9:40 pm the same night in Raipur. The investigating officer sought a 48-hour transit remand from a Raipur magistrate under Section 167 of the CrPC. On June 21, Dhebar was produced before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut, who remanded him to judicial custody till July 1. Dhebar, the brother of former Raipur mayor, and Tuteja, who was arrested separately, approached the Allahabad high court seeking a declaration that their arrests were unlawful and a quashing of the subsequent remand orders. Both petitioners argued that neither during arrest nor during judicial proceedings were they informed of the reasons for their arrest, a point the state did not contest in its counter-affidavit. They also claimed their right to object to the arrest was denied, breaching Articles 19(1) and 22(1) of the Constitution. The state argued that a memo of arrest was prepared, and Dhebar's son had been informed. However, the court noted that the arrest memo lacked any column specifying the grounds of arrest and that no opportunity was given to the accused to contest the remand. "The petitioners were never furnished with the grounds of arrest," the bench concluded, terming the arrest process a clear procedural violation. The trial court has been allowed to proceed under the law based on the charge sheet....