MLAs Not Above Law, Cooperating With Investigation Also Public Service: Delhi High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To AAP's Amanatullah Khan

The Delhi High Court on Monday denied anticipatory bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan in a money laundering case connected to the alleged irregularities in the Delhi Waqf Board recruitment during his chairmanship.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma denied the relief to Khan taking note of his conduct of avoiding the repeated summons issued to him by ED and not joining the investigation. 

“Repeated disobedience of summons of the investigating agency is equivalent to Obstruction of investigation - Obstruction of investigation is equivalent to obstruction of administration of justice - Obstruction of administration of justice is equivalent to Eroding trust and confidence in the criminal justice system - and eroding trust and confidence in the criminal justice system will lead to Anarchy and diminished respect for the rule of law.,” the court said. 

“This Court wonders whether a person's plea of being busy with personal or official work can be a valid ground on several occasions to avoid summons on the ground that he is a public person. The answer in this Court's opinion has to be in the negative, since cooperating with investigating agency by a public figure too is public service, as the public is entitled to know from the legal representative about the allegations levelled by an investigating agency on the basis of statements of witnesses recorded under Section 50 PMLA which are in nature of judicial proceedings and admissible in law, and on the basis of evidence collected during investigation,” it added.

The court observed that refusing to assist or providing information to the investigating agency, when lawfully asked, and refusing to appear before it despite being bound to do so, amounts to obstructing the law enforcement agency.

Justice Sharma held that in upholding accountability of public figures, the court cannot allow new jurisdiction of different set of rules to prevail regarding investigation of classes by permitting the request that being a public figure, Khan was busy with activities in his constituency and thus, he could not appear before ED.

The court observed that MLA or a public figure is not above the law and that action of such figures is observed closely by whom they serve.

“In a case where a person who has systematically and repeatedly avoided summons of the investigating agency, extending relief of grant of anticipatory bail to him, in face of prosecuting agency having been able to place on record prima facie material which needs to be confronted with the accused by joining investigation, involving allegations of money laundering and misuseof public money etc. which are serious in nature, will amount to trivializing the alleged offence and the attendant message to the public that there is no need to obey the law i.e. responding to the summons and joining investigation which is a requirement of law,” the court observed.

It added: “Refusing to assist, aid, provide relevant information asked for by the Law Enforcement Agency when lawfully asked, failing to appear before the investigating agency, despite being bound in law, such non- appearance thus, amounts to obstructing the Law Enforcement Agency and the concerned officers from performing their duties to investigate the case which is equivalent to obstructing administration of justice and investigation.”

Khan was denied anticipatory bail by the trial court earlier this month. 

Additional Sessions Judge Rakesh Syal of Rouse Avenue Courts had observed that there appeared to be no reasonable grounds for believing that Khan is not guilty of the alleged offences or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

“Considering the material available on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, when seen from the standard of broad probabilities, at this stage, there appears to be no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence under the Act or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail,” the court had said.

It had added: “Accordingly, his application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed. Any observation made hereinbefore shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case.”

The case alleges that Amanatullah Khan, while working as chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board, illegally recruited various people in violation of norms and government guidelines.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has alleged that Khan acquired huge proceeds of crime in cash from illegal recruitment of staff in the Delhi Waqf Board and invested the same to purchase immovable assets in the name of his associates.

ED filed a chargesheet against five entities, including three alleged associates of Amanatullah Khan namely Zeeshan Haider, Daud Nasir and Jawed Imam Siddiqui, who were arrested by the central agency in November last year.

Title: Amanatullah Khan v. ED

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 288

Click Here To Read Order