Questioning suspect is our right, says ED; HC reserves order on Anil Deshmukh’s plea

The ED argued that the fact that though it had only issued summons for questioning, Anil Deshmukh’s reluctance to come in person indicated that he was aware that he could be arrested

The Enforcement Directorate (ED), while opposing the petition of former home minister Anil Deshmukh which sought quashing of proceedings arising out of the summons being issued to him by ED, argued that the high court (HC) petition was not maintainable as the agency was only exercising its right to investigate and had summoned Deshmukh only to question him with regards to the material seized from him.

Anil Deshmukh had sought quashing of proceedings arising out of the summons being issued to him by ED. (HT PHOTO)

The ED argued that the fact that though it had only issued summons for questioning, Deshmukh’s reluctance to come in person indicated that he was aware that he could be arrested. The ED also submitted that it had a right to question the suspect at the place and time it deemed fit and not the other way round, hence no reliefs should be granted as the investigation was just at the initial stage and the court’s interference would indict the entire process.

The division bench of justice Nitin Jamdar and justice Sarang Kotwal, while hearing the petition of Deshmukh was informed by senior counsel Aman Lekhi for the ED that the entire premise of the petition was misconceived. Lekhi submitted that the agency had only issued summons to Deshmukh in the exercise of section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which requires a suspect to attend the ED office in person. However, Deshmukh was jumping to the conclusion that he would be arrested under section 19 of the same Act when he went in person, which indicated that he had some guilt and something to hide, he added.

“This is the initial stage of the investigation and interrogation of a suspect is the right of the agency. However, the petitioner has been avoiding the summons and approached the court which indicates that he wants to stifle and interdict the investigation,” submitted Lekhi.

He further referred to past judgements of the Supreme Court and also the order passed in the petition filed by Deshmukh before approaching the HC and said that none of them provided any protection to the suspect as the court realised that without interrogation, details of the crime being investigated would not come to the fore, hence the current bench should also not interfere.

Lekhi further argued that that the submission that documents were being sought from the petitioner without giving him the ECIR also was not valid as the summons were intended to question the suspect regarding the recoveries made during his house search. Lekhi submitted that the HC had no reason to interfere and should not grant the reliefs sought by the petitioner.

Thereafter, the bench said it had concluded hearing the arguments of both sides and reserved its order, which is expected to be passed in due course.