The Rouse Avenue Court on Tuesday granted time to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to file a reply on AAP MLA Amanat Ullah Khan’s anticipatory bail plea in the Delhi Waqf Board Money Laundering case.
Moreover, the court has not granted any interim relief to the AAP MLA. He has been summoned by the ED on Monday. Special judge Rakesh Syal granted time to ED and listed the matter for further hearing on February 24.
Special public prosecutor (SPP) Manish Jain and Simon Benjamin appeared for ED and submitted that they require one week to file a reply as their bail application was received yesterday.
During a short argument, it was submitted by the ED that Amanat Ullah Khan had approached the Delhi High Court against the summons. But the petition was withdrawn. This fact has been concealed by the applicant. ED sought a week to file a response.
On the other hand, advocate Rajat Bhardwaj, counsel for Khan opposed it and requested the court to adjourn the matter till Wednesday or Friday.
Khan’s Counsel also said that the ED wants to this application to become infructuous. Three summonses have already been issued to the applicant. He sought protection till the next date of hearing. After hearing the submissions the court listed the matter on Saturday for hearing.
At this point, the counsel for Khan orally said, “Yahan Par Sab ED ke Hisab se chal Raha hai.” SPP Manish Jain objected to this and requested the court to record this statement of Khan’s Counsel. The court asked the Counsel not to make any such statements.
The court on Monday issued notice to ED on anticipatory bail application. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy had argued and prayed for an interim protection. However, the court refused to grant the relief.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy submitted That Khan has been summoned in a money laundering case.
She submitted that the issue is filing two FIRs regarding the same cause of action. The first FIR of November 23, 2016, filed by CBI.
The allegation is that the petitioner was wrongfully appointed as chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board and wrongfully bid.
The agency closed the matter and termed it as administrative irregularities but they used it in filing a second FIR.
It is a cardinal principle of criminal law that there cannot be two FIRs for one cause. In the two FIRs they tried to restart the case, the Senior advocate submitted.
She also submitted that the Bail orders in both cases arrived at the same conclusion that there was no loss to the exchequer.
It was also stated there is an allegation that 33 contractual employees were recruited and there were irregularities in the said appointments.
It was also noted in the bail orders that there was no bribe paid, and no recoveries were made. Then there is no question of proceeds of crime, She added.
For the two allegations the leasing of property it was concluded that there was no evidence of loss to the exchequer and it was concluded that they were administrative irregularities and the money that was given was for work done by the people, she submitted.
The senior counsel also said that three sets of summons have come. The last summon I complied with was through an AR, and I submitted my mobile phone. The third summon was for today.
The court asked, to have the applicant appear before ED. The counsel submitted that the applicant is before the court today. Kindly grant protection till the next date of the hearing.
Earlier, he had challenged the summons issued by the ED at the high court. However, the petition was withdrawn by him.
The Rouse Avenue court on January 19, 2024, took Cognizance of the Prosecution Complaint (Charge sheet) filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Delhi Waqf Board Money Laundering case.
ED has charge sheeted four persons Zeeshan Haider his partner Sky Power, Javed Imam Siddiqui, Dawood Nasir, and Qausar Imam Siddiqui.
During the hearing on consideration of the Charge sheet, ED had alleged that a property of Rs. 36 crore was purchased with the ill-gotten money on the behest of AAP MLA Amanat Ullah Khan. He himself handed over Rs. 8 crore in cash. In response to a question related to the role of Amanat Ullah Khan, ED’s counsel had submitted that further investigation related to the role of others is going on.
Special public prosecutor (SPP) Manish Jain for ED had submitted that during the investigation of this PMLA case, ED considered the FIRs were registered earlier, by the CBI, ACB and Delhi police.
It was further submitted that ACB requested for investigation under PMLA against MLA and then chairman Amanat Ullah Khan. Properties allegedly were made in Delhi, Telengana and Uttrakhand with alleged ill-gotten money.
ACB conducted searches at the premises owned and controlled by Hamid Ali Khan and Qausar Imam Siddiqui. Incriminating evidence and illegal weapons were recovered, ED had submitted.
During the searches, three diaries were also recovered. Quasar Imam Siddiqui maintained these diaries. In relation to the recovery of illegal weapons, an FIR was registered at police station Jamia Nagar under the section of the Arms Act.
It was also alleged that he purchased properties in the name of his benamidar Zeeshan Haider.
SPP Jain has also submitted that Diaries reveal high-value transactions between Amanat Ullah and Javed Imam Siddiqui including purchasing of a plot measuring 1200 Square Yards in Tikona Park, in Okhla.
This particular property was purchased for Rs. 36 crore and this transaction is supported by the diary. Rs. 8 crore cash was handed over by Amanat Ullah. Rs. 9 crore was paid through the banking channel by accused Zeeshan and Dawood Nasir to Javed Imam Siddiqui, Jain had submitted.
SPP Jain said that the original owner of the property is Aisha Kanwar who bought it in 2019. It was sold to the accused Zeeshan and Dawood in 2021.
An agreement to sell Rs. 36 crore was recovered from the mobile of the accused. This transaction is supported by a diary, and an agreement to sell.
ED submitted that this property was bought at the behest of Amanat Ullah Khan. Quasar Imam Siddiqui is the cousin of Javed Imam Siddiqui.
Instead of placing the original agreement of Rs. 36 crore, another agreement of Rs. 13.40 crore was created and produced, ED argued.
It shows that they manipulated the front page. It is tampering with the evidence, ED’s counsel added. He also submitted that Out of Rs. 36 crore, Rs. 27 Crore cash transaction is evident. It is a clear-cut established against the accused persons and fits the case to summon the accused persons.
(This news report is published from a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has not been written or edited by OpIndia staff)
