Supreme Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan In PMLA Case, Expresses Reservations With Delhi HC's Observations On Merits

The Supreme Court today (on April 15) refused to entertain the petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan against the dismissal of his anticipatory bail by the Delhi High Court, in a money laundering case related to alleged irregularities in the recruitment of the Delhi Wakf Board.However, at the same time, the Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta expressed their reservations with regard to certain observations on the merits of the matter made by the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment. In view of this, the Court clarified that observations in the impugned judgment will not be treated as findings on merits relating to evidence or material relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).The Court, in its order, also granted relief to Khan against an application filed by ED before the Special Court for the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against him. However, this is subject to Khan's appearance before the probe agency on April 18 at 11:am. The Case pertains to the alleged irregularities in the Delhi Waqf Board recruitment during Khan's chairmanship. It was on March 11 when the High Court dismissed Khan's plea after noting his conduct of avoiding the repeated summons issued to him by ED and not joining the investigation. Assailing this order, Khan approached the Supreme Court.At the commencement of the proceedings, senior advocate Vikram Chaudhary submitted on behalf of Khan that there was no evidence regarding predicate offence. However, Justice Khanna shot back, saying: “Look, you have messed up your whole matter by not responding to the summons.” Adding to this, Justice Khanna posed “Repeatedly summons were issued, how can we condone that?” Thereafter, the Bench turned to ASG Raju and told him that some observations had been made on the merits of various issues in the later part of the impugned judgment. “That should not have been done. Like the credibility of Section 50 (PMLA) statement is not required at this stage. Look, the Section 50 statement is a piece of evidence. It is not evidence before the Court. That is the difference. Evidence before the Court is the actual statement made by the person in the Court itself. ” Justice Khanna stated. Chaudhary, in his attempt to convince the bench, submitted that in January, a chargesheet was filed against four persons, four of whom were arrested in this case. However, Khan was not formally arraigned in those chargesheets. Nothwithstanding, the Bench was not inclined to grant relief and made it clear that Khan must join the investigation. “We are not inclined to issue a notice in the appeal to the extent it denies anticipatory bail. However, we clarify that we have some reservations in observations of the impugned judgment regarding the interpretation of section 50 of the PMLA Act and some observations on merit. We clarify that the observations in the impugned judgment will not be treated as findings on merits relating to evidence or material relied upon by the ED. The issue is left open.” Following this, Chaudhary also pointed out ED's application for the issuance of non-bailable warrants against Khan before the special court. The Counsel underscored the necessity for the withdrawal for Khan to appear before the probe agency. The Court categorically asked ASG to make this concession. “You arrest him in case there is material. In case, there is no material, do not arrest him. You have to follow Section 19 PMLA..It should not be taken for granted that if he appears, he will be arrested., ” Justice Khanna added. Ultimately, the Bench ordered Khan to appear before ED on April 18, 2024, at 11:am. Once this condition is met, the application for the issuance of the warrant will be withdrawn. “It is pointed out by the Ld. senior advocate appearing for the petitioner that ED has filed an application for the issuance of non-bailable warrants before the Special Court. He stated that the petitioner would appear before the officers of ED on April 18, 2024, at 11AM. In terms of earlier notices issued. In case the petitioner appears, the ED shall withdraw the application filed before the special Court.,” the Court ordered. Impugned Order And Allegations Against Khan The HC bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had observed that refusing to assist or provide 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 also held that in upholding the accountability of public figures, the court cannot allow new jurisdiction of different sets of rules to prevail in investigations. This was stated in response to Khan's request that, being a public figure, he was busy with activities in his constituency and thus could not appear before the ED. The court observed that MLA or a public figure is not above the law and that the action of such figures is observed closely by whom they serve As ...

Supreme Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan In PMLA Case, Expresses Reservations With Delhi HC's Observations On Merits

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

Supreme Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan In PMLA Case, Expresses Reservations With Delhi HC's Observations On Merits

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers