The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has opposed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Amanatullah Khan’s plea challenging his arrest in the money laundering case registered in connection with alleged irregularities in the Delhi Waqf Board (DWB), saying that neither his arrest nor his remand is illegal.
In its reply filed on Thursday, the probe agency said that Khan knowingly, directly and actively laundered money while being DWB chairman and Okhla MLA.
“The petition praying for the petitioner’s release is not maintainable before this court as firstly, there is no illegality in the arrest and remand of the petitioner and secondly, the only method by which accused can seek relief of release from custody is by filing an application for bail which will be judicially adjudicated upon by applying the rigors of Section 45 of PMLA,” the affidavit filed through special counsel Zoheb Hossain said.
The affidavit added, “Amanatullah Khan has knowingly and directly involved in the offence of money laundering by way of generating the proceeds of crime through corrupt and illegal activities, by actively concealing the material facts pertaining to the proceeds of crime and by laundering the same using his close associates while holding the high official position being the chairman of Delhi Waqf Board and MLA from Okhla Legislative Assembly of Delhi.”
ED’s probe against Khan stemmed from a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2016, accusing him of illegally appointing various people to DWB against non-sanctioned and non-existent vacancies, which caused financial loss to the Delhi government and illegal gains to himself. He is also alleged to have illegally leased out properties of the Waqf Board. He was arrested by ED on September 2 this year.
Khan’s plea filed through advocates Rajat Bhardwaj and Kaustubh Khanna said that the probe agency arrested him without any evidence substantiating his role and also failed to identify the money trail before his arrest. It said that ED’s reasons for taking him into custody were frivolous and baseless and the agency, after April 18, had no new material based on which it formed an opinion for “necessity to arrest”.
ED, however, said that Khan had failed to comply with the summonses. In its 72-page reply, ED said that his conduct of “wilfully disobeying the summons” led to an additional inference of his involvement in the money laundering offence and evading the process of joining the probe.
Khan in his plea had also alleged that the arrest was made in the guise of a search but no search was conducted. In response, the agency said that Khan’s allegation did not hold any water as it could not carry out the search in an “orderly manner” due to the legislator and his family’s non-cooperation and attempts to thwart the proceedings.
It also urged the court to dismiss his petition on the sole ground of suppression of “relevant material” contending that Khan’s plea failed to provide disclosure about Delhi high court’s March 11 order rejecting his anticipatory bail in the same case.
Though the matter was listed before a bench of justice Manoj Kumar Ohri on Friday, the same was adjourned for December 17.
Leave a Reply