Supended CBI judge, nephew move bail plea; court seeks reply from ED on October 20

The bail application was filed days after the Supreme Court granted relief to Pankaj Bansal on October 3, a co-accused in the money laundering case

After suspended special CBI judge Sudhir Parmar and his nephew Ajay Parmar, who were arrested in a money laundering case, moved a bail application in a court, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) special court, Panchkula, presided over by Rajeev Goyal issued a notice to Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Tuesday, seeking a reply to the bail application on October 20.

HT Image

Ajay, who is the deputy manager, legal, with real estate firm M3M India in Gurugram, was arrested on June 15. As per sources, he had sought “concession of regular bail on parity and on the strength of the plea that his arrest was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 19 of PMLA.”

Ajay was arrested by ED while investigating the money laundering case linked to a corruption case registered by the Haryana anti-corruption bureau (ACB) against Sudhir, an additional sessions judge-rank judicial officer who was also holding the charge of special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court before he was suspended.

ED had started PMLA investigations after registering an enforcement case information report (ECIR) on June 13. The ECIR was based on the April 17 first information report (FIR) registered by ACB under Sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for offences relating to a public servant being bribed, a public servant taking undue advantage, criminal misconduct by a public servant and criminal conspiracy.

Sudhir, suspended on April 27 after being booked on April 17, was accused of alleged favouritism in his treatment of real estate developers Roop Bansal and his brother Basant Bansal of M3M and Lalit Goyal of IREO Group, according to the ACB’s FIR.

It may be mentioned that the ED has already filed a chargesheet against seven persons, including Sudhir Parmar’s sister-in-law and two relatives. The chargesheet is filed against two directors of real estate company M3M India —Pankaj Bansal and his father Basant Bansal, Ajay Parmar –nephew of Sudhir Parmar, MD of IREO Group, Lalit Goyal. The chargesheet also names Rohit Singh Tomar who owns a transportation company and is a relative of Parmar’s, Sudhir’s nephew -- Paramvir Parmar and Paramvir’s mother Pushpa Devi. These three have already been questioned by the ED, who alleged that Sudhir Parmar had used his influence due to which Tomar gave ₹10 lakhs to Parmars without any agreement.

Bail plea refers to SC relief to co-accused

The bail application was filed days after the Supreme Court granted relief to Pankaj Bansal on October 3, a co-accused in this case. The apex court had by its order “set aside the impugned orders passed by the division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as the impugned arrest orders and arrest memos along with the orders of remand passed by the learned vacation judge/additional sessions judge, Panchkula.”

The apex court had pointed out that the “ED’s investigating officer merely read out or permitted reading of the grounds of arrest of the appellants and left it at that…. we have no hesitation in holding that their arrest was not in keeping with the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002”. The order further read, “The clandestine conduct of the ED in proceeding against the appellants, by recording the second ECIR immediately after they secured interim protection in relation to the first ECIR, does not commend acceptance as it reeks of arbitrary exercise of power. In effect, the arrest of the appellants and, in consequence, their remand to the custody of the ED and, thereafter, to judicial custody, cannot be sustained.”

Lalit Goyal gets bail on similar ground

In light of the Supreme Court orders, co-accused Lalit Goyal on October 13 was granted bail. He had moved the court saying that the ED did not do what was required to be done for making meticulous compliance with Section 19 during his arrest on July 4.

“It is seen from the record that though grounds of arrest were prepared in writing the same was never furnished to Goyal,” the PMLA court Panchkula had observed while granting bail to Goyal on furnishing bail bonds of ₹1 lakh with one surety in the like amount.