New DelhiRajya Sabha member and leader of Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) party, Sanjay Raut was released on Wednesday, after nearly 100 days in custody, after the Bombay High Court stayed the bail order granted to the politician by a special PMLA court on Tuesday. After refusing, he was released on Wednesday. in an alleged case of money laundering.
Rajya Sabha MP and co-accused Pravin Raut was Arrested In the alleged ₹1034 crore scam related to August Patra Chawla’s Redevelopment In Mumbai’s Goregaon West (Bombay).
The Special PMLA Court had on Tuesday granted bail to the accused on various grounds, but the Enforcement Directorate (ED) immediately reached the Bombay High Court for a stay order.
However, the High Court did not interfere with the order of the lower court, adjourning the hearing till Thursday.
PMLA Court’s Single Judge Bench of MG Deshpande, while allowing Raut’s bail, sharply commented on ED’s behavior, criticizing it for “illegal” arrest, “pick-and-choose argument”, slow pace of investigation process . And to organize a “witch hunt”.
read also, ED raids Telangana minister Gangula Kamalakar’s house in illegal mining, money laundering probe
Arrest illegal, no need
Raut was brought to the ED office, and after extensive searches, was arrested on August 1 at around 12:35 am.
Deshpande noted various examples, such as the time of the arrest, to hold that the arrest was illegal. Referring to the 2014 Supreme Court judgment in Arnesh Kumar, the court said, there was no legal requirement to arrest the accused. Case, At that time the top court had said that arrest should be made only in cases where it is just and necessary.
Deshpande conceded that the ED had ignored contemporary cases on the subject and that the extreme and extraordinary power to effect arrest should be used “very, very rarely”.
The court said that the presence of the accused could have been ensured by summons or other means.
It was also noted that the ED did not arrest the main accused Rakesh Wadhawan and Sarang Wadhawan, while Raut sought some time to be present. The court said that this points to the disparity and the attitude of choosing to arrest.
“Therefore, I am of the firm view that the arrest of both the accused (A3 and A5) without the requisite qualification under Section 19 of the PML Act is fundamentally illegal,” the court said.
Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, provides For the safeguards underlying the arrest under the Act, including the recording of the reasons why the arrest is necessary.
Witchcraft, Violation of rights, No health care
According to the PMLA court’s decision, after the “unusual” arrest at midnight and during the ED’s custody, Raut was kept in a room without any ventilation or windows, with little regard for his recent angioplasty. It was only after the intervention of the court that they got a room with some ventilation.
Taking cognizance of the circumstances, the court said that Raut’s arrest was nothing more than a witch-hunt.
“All this prima facie indicates that his arrest is nothing but the destruction of his valuable rights,” the court said.
It also noted that the pace of Raut’s arrest and detention by the ED was exceptionally fast, once the accused was sent to judicial custody, the ED’s speed in responding to bail applications and other actions became exceptionally slow. .
“Once the applicant (accused) applies for bail, it takes at least three to four weeks or more for the ED to file its reply… an ordinary application filed by any of the accused”, the court noted. did.
It states that while the ED observed that he has power to arrest and that’s a crime non bailable Under the PMLA, it “forgets” that a provision exists for testing under the same law.
The court asked whether the ED was not accountable for the “modus-operandi” taken by them during the hearing, and said it was bound to apprise the agency of the trial process without any fear or favour.
Further, it termed the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) his behavior (in handling the case and responses) as “suspect from the beginning”. The contract for Patra Chawl redevelopment was awarded by MHADA to the executing agencies.
The court also observed that the bail plea of the accused was pending for more than three to six months and expressed displeasure over it. Bail applications should be decided expeditiously keeping in view the recent Supreme Court judgments, such as Case This year in the case of Satendra Antil v Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), where the apex court had held that bail applications should be disposed of expeditiously.
The PMLA Court further observed that since there was nothing on record to show that the accused had violated any of the bail conditions imposed on them, there is no possibility that, on release on bail, they would commit the offense will do.
It accordingly accepted the bail application filed by the accused.
The High Court will now review the special court’s order on Thursday in an appeal filed by the ED.
Akshat Jain is a student of National Law University, Delhi and an intern at ThePrint.
(Edited by Polomi Banerjee)
read also, SC dismisses PILs against Hemant Soren, says ‘half-cooked truth, unclean hands’