The enforcement directorate (ED) on Thursday got five-day custody of promoter of real estate company M3M, Basant Bansal and his son Pankaj Bansal for interrogating them. The ED had produced the duo before the court of additional district and session judge Praveen Lal seeking grant of 14-day custody.
The defence counsel opposed the remand application saying that they were arrested when they had gone to join investigations in connection with PMLA investigations.
However, the ED said they require custodial interrogation of Basant and Pankaj as their non-cooperation is delaying the investigation, further necessitating the need of custodial interrogation on certain crucial aspects of the investigation related to bribery and corruption.
“The custodial interrogation, which is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented of Basant Bansal and Pankaj Bansal is absolutely necessary in this case as there are many aspects which need to be investigated and they have been totally non-cooperative, evasive and misleading during the investigation conducted till now. Sustained interrogation under custody for 14 days is required to unearth the trail of funds, for corroboration and confrontation with other persons involved in the case,” said the ED in its application.
It further said the interrogation of Basant and Pankaj Bansal may reveal crucial facts qua offence of money laundering which are in their exclusive knowledge. If their remand is not granted, there is likelihood of them trying to obfuscate the trail of proceeds of crime identified so far or which are yet to be unearthed. They may also try to further mislead the investigation in progress. Their personal interrogation is the need of the hour and in the interest of investigation of the offence of money laundering under PMLA. The material collected during investigation so far clearly makes out a strong case for their custodial interrogation, the application said.
{{/usCountry}}It further said the interrogation of Basant and Pankaj Bansal may reveal crucial facts qua offence of money laundering which are in their exclusive knowledge. If their remand is not granted, there is likelihood of them trying to obfuscate the trail of proceeds of crime identified so far or which are yet to be unearthed. They may also try to further mislead the investigation in progress. Their personal interrogation is the need of the hour and in the interest of investigation of the offence of money laundering under PMLA. The material collected during investigation so far clearly makes out a strong case for their custodial interrogation, the application said.
{{/usCountry}}