Delhi court rejects anticipatory bail plea of AAP’s Okhla MLA

The court thus concluded that there were prima facie grounds available to find Khan guilty under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and dismissed his application seeking anticipatory bail

New Delhi: A Delhi Court on Friday refused to grant anticipatory bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan in the money laundering case registered against him in connection with the alleged irregularities in recruitment of staff and leasing of properties of the Delhi Waqf Board.

AAP MLA from Okhla Amanatullah Khan. (Sonu Mehta/HT Photo)

“When seen from the standard of broad probabilities, at this stage, there appears to be no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence under the Act or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Accordingly, his application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail is dismissed”, said special judge Rakesh Syal

The Okhla legislator had moved the anticipatory on February 17, before Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court, citing that he is under the scanner of the agency for his alleged role in the case and there is an apprehension that he may be arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The court, while dismissing the anticipatory bail application, observed that while deciding any bail application, a prima facie opinion of granting or refusing to grant bail is to be expressed by the court, particularly in the cases of economic offences.

The court appreciated the material placed on record and observed that the documents seized by the Delhi police Anti Corruption branch (ACB) showed huge transactions between Khan and his associates including transactions regarding a property purchased by Khan in the name of his associates.

The court further noted that the transactions recorded in the documents seized by ACB were corroborated by the statements of various witnesses recorded by ED and other documentary evidence retrieved during the probe.

The court thus concluded that there were prima facie grounds available to find Khan guilty under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and dismissed his application seeking anticipatory bail.

Senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy and advocate Rajat Bharadwaj, appearing for Khan, argued that ED’s case is based on two FIRs, one by CBI and the other by ACB, which goes against the cardinal principle of criminal law that two FIRs cannot be registered for the same cause of action.

It was further argued by them that there is no evidence on record that Khan is guilty of generation of proceeds of crime which is being probed by ED.

The counsels evinced that the courts, while granting bail in the predicate offence case, have observed that there has been no loss to the exchequer regarding the creation of tenancies of the properties of the Delhi Waqf Board, and there have been no material on record to show that bribes were paid for securing jobs with the Delhi Waqf Board or salaries were drawn without doing any kind of work.

On the other hand, special public prosecutor (SPP) Manish Jain and advocates Ishaan Baisla and Snehal Sharda, appearing for the the federal probe agency, had opposed the anticipatory bail application stating that his conduct has been such that the bail application should be dismissed, highlighting that he has evaded the summons issued to him.

Pointing out apprehension of evidence tampering, influencing witness and absconding, the agency submitted that Khan concealed the fact that he has 22 cases against him.

It was also argued that Khan had approached the Delhi High Court earlier on seeking quashing of an FIR on the ground that two FIRs cannot be filed on the same cause of action, however, the petition was dismissed as not pressed, on February 7, and this fact was also not revealed before the court.

ED had initiated its probed based on the CBI case registered in 2016, accusing Khan of illegally appointing various people to the Delhi Waqf Board against non-sanctioned and non-existent vacancies, which caused financial loss to the Delhi government and illegal gains to himself.

Subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) said the AAP leader was involved in money laundering. According to the federal agency, the AAP leader laundered his illegal gains by purchasing immovable properties through his associates.