Delhi Court Transfers PMLA Case After Accused Alleges Judge Commented 'ED Matters Me Kaunsi Bail Hoti Hain'

A Delhi Court has transferred proceedings in the Bhushan Steel money laundering case from one judge to another, after one of the accused alleged that the judge passed a comment expressing "ED matters me kaun si bail hoti hai?)”Principal District & Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna of Rouse Avenue Courts observed that the perception and view point of the accused stating that he did not expect impartial hearing from the court, has to be given due regard.“The pleas duly supported by affidavit cannot be outrightly discarded. Relegating the applicant to the court upon which specific allegations of bias are made, would possibly have adverse bearing on his case,” the court said. Observing that the case is at its initial stage, the court observed that no prejudice would be caused to ED if the case is heard by any other court of competent jurisdiction. “Accordingly, it is felt appropriate to transfer the proceedings to some other court. The application of applicant is allowed,” the court ordered. The ECIR was accordingly withdrawn from the court of Special Judge Jagdish Kumar to the court of Special Judge Mukesh Kumar, for adjudication and disposal as per law.The application was moved by, Ajay S. Mittal, accused in the PMLA case, seeking transfer of the proceedings. He alleged that while his bail plea was pending before the judge, his wife, once the counsels left the court room, heard the judge saying “lene do datein, ED matters me kaun si bail hoti hai.” This was after the court staff enquired something.The accused alleged that the comments of the judge came as a shock to him and there was a reasonable apprehension that the presiding officer was sitting with pre-determined and pre-judicial mind” to dismiss his bail application.It was his case that since the judge had already formed an opinion, he did not expect fair and proper opportunity to represent his case.On the other hand, the ED opposed the application, stating that no such statement was made by the judge or any member of the court staff.It was submitted that the apprehension of not getting fair and impartial hearing, must be reasonable and based on substantial material. Allowing the application, the court said that judges are obliged to decide the cases before them with impartiality, integrity and by ensuring the equality of treatment and in doing so judges are upholding the rule of law.“There is no complaint as to the conduct of Ld. Presiding Officer Sh.Jagdish Kumar and the only issue raised by the applicant is the apprehension that Ld. Judge has already made up his mind to the effect that bail is not available in ED matters. The perception and view point of petitioner / applicant whereby he does not expect impartial hearing from the court, has to be given due regard in the facts and circumstances of the case,” the court said.It added: “The matter is at its initial stage and no prejudice would be caused to the answering respondent, if case is heard by any other court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is felt appropriate to transfer the proceedings to some other court. The application of applicant is allowed.”Senior Advocates Jayant Sud, Sanjoy Ghosh, alongwith Advocates Sanyam Khetarpal, Prakriti Anand, Nitai Agarwal, Kartik Jasra, Prannit Stefano, Shivam Nagpal,Rohan Mandal, Akash Basoya appeared for the applicant. Advocates Mantika Vohra and Zeeshan Thomas appeared for Accused No. 58- Orrisa Sponge Iron and Steel Ltd.Advocate Divyank Panwar appeared for Accused No. 78- Pankaj Kumar TewariAdvocates Ranjana Roy Gawai and Ujjwal Jain appeared for Accused Nos. 1 to 6, 8 to 53, 59 to 64 and 69 to 72Special counsel Zoheb Hossain along with SPPs NK Matta and Simon Benjamin appeared for ED, along with Advocates Manish Jain, Abhipriya Rai, Sourabh Kaushik, Chandveer SinghClick here to read order

Delhi Court Transfers PMLA Case After Accused Alleges Judge Commented 'ED Matters Me Kaunsi Bail Hoti Hain'

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags