Top court to take Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik plea on release from jail

Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik’s arrest - in the money laundering case- had also triggered a political row in the state.

Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik’s petition seeking immediate release from prison in a money laundering case linked to Dawood Ibrahim will be heard in the Supreme Court, a bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana said on Wednesday. The bench, however, did not mention a date. The Bombay High Court had rejected the application by the minister arrested in February.

Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik in this file photo is seen after he was arrested. (PTI)

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Malik, mentioned the matter for urgent listing of the case on Wednesday in the top court. "This is Nawab Malik's matter where ED (Enforcement Directorate) is taking proceedings. The act came into place in 2005, the transaction is prior to 2000. A transaction from 22 years ago is sought to proceed,” Sibal was reported as saying.

Responding to this, the chief justice said: “Yes, we will list it."

The Enforcement Directorate had arrested Malik under the provisions of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002). The 62-year-old leader had, however, called his arrest and subsequent demands “illegal”.

Malik’s arrest had also triggered a political row in the state. While the BJP called for the minister’s arrest, the ruling coalition had dismissed the demands, saying the arrest was an instance of the central government’s “misuse” of central probe agencies.

“There is also merit in the submissions of the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) that merely because the special court granted the custody of petitioner (Malik) would not make that order illegal ipso facto because the petitioner is aggrieved,” the high court had said.

“In the present case, there is no dispute on the factual aspect that custody order is passed by the competent court of jurisdiction- the special court,” the high court had said.

“And secondly, merely because the order is against the petitioner, it cannot be termed as patently illegal,” the court had said.

(With inputs from ANI, PTI)