Nawab Malik Arrest: Bombay High Court Seeks ED's Response In Habeas Corpus Plea By March 7

A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and GA Sanap asked the ED to file its response to the petition by then significantly observing that Malik's second remand appearance, which is due tomorrow, will not prejudice his or the prosecution's rights and contentions.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Amit Desai along with Advocates Taraq Sayed and Kushal Mor expressed apprehension regarding the maintainability of the plea after which the court passed the order.

"Tomorrow is the remand date, if the judge continues his (ED) custody the prosecution will say that the petition is not maintainable since this is a habeas corpus petition…"

To this Justice Sunil Shukre observed, "if you say the first remand order is illegal, then the second remand does not make it legal."

Full updates from hearing here:

While the court was inclined to hear the matter tomorrow, the matter was adjourned to March 7 at ASG Anil Singh's request. Appearing for the ED, Singh sought time owing to the bulk of the matter.

In the habeas corpus petition, Malik has sought to quash ED's ECIR (FIR) against him, immediate release and a declaration that his arrest was illegal. He has further sought to quash the Special Court's order remanding him in ED's custody till March 3.

A 5-time MLA was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on February 23, 2022 in a money laundering case based on NIA's FIR registered against global terrorist Dawood Ibrahim on February 3, 2022.

ED alleged that Malik in connivance with D-gang members i.e. Haseena Parker, Salim Patel and Sardar Khan hatched a criminal conspiracy for usurping one Munira Plumber's ancestral property in Kurla having current market value of around Rs.300 crores. Thus, it is proceeds of crime under section section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, the ED claimed. The ED relied on documents executed between March 1999 to September 2005.

Malik claimed that there was a breach of section 19 of the PMLA Act and section 41A of the CrPC as he was served with a summons by the Enforcement Directorate after his detention. He further alleged that PMLA couldn't be applied for an offence allegedly committed 20 years ago, before the act was enacted.

Malik said there was no predicate offence made out as he had nothing to do with the D-gang. He said the Power of Attorney on the basis of which the property was sold to him permitted sale. So the original owner couldn't feign ignorance now.

Malik's counsel's were instructed by Rashmikant and Partners.