MLA for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Amanat Ullah Khan, filed a request for anticipatory bail with the Delhi High Court in relation to a money laundering case that was brought against him due to purported irregularities in the hiring of employees and the leasing of real estate by the Delhi Waqf Board.
He was not granted bail in the Delhi Waqf Board Money Laundering case on Friday by the trial court. In this particular situation, the ED had already called him in.
On behalf of Amanat Ullah Khan, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy and advocate Rajat Bhardwaj had argued on the bail motion. Senior attorney Menaka Guruswamy made the argument that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed this ECIR eight years (7 years and 7 months) after the CBI filed a FIR in 2016.
Allegations have been made that unlawful leasing of Waqf Properties worth Rs. 100 crore was done. Additionally, it is alleged that 32 contract workers were hired by the Delhi Waqf Board in violation of the law while Amanat Ullah Khan was chairman.
A senior counsel contended that the CBI’s charge sheet determined that property leasing constituted administrative errors. There were no illicit gains, unfair advantages, or losses to the public coffers.
Additionally, it was claimed that the sum of Rs. 100 crore was comparable to the CBI case. They must still provide evidence of a scheduled offense. In the CBI case, he was given bail in March 2023, according to Guruswamy.
Additionally, it was asserted that salaries were given to employees in exchange for their labor. no unfair benefit received by the applicant. There was no recovery made from the applicant. Additionally, it was argued that the accused in the ACB FIR was granted bail on September 28, 2022.
32 contractual workers received salary payments of Rs. 3 crores via banking channels, as per the directive. No worker gave the applicant their salary back. It indicates that no unfair advantage exists.
“I’m not sure how I, Amat, am connected to this property sale case. There hasn’t been any kind of recovery as of yet. 27 crores rupees is a large sum. How and where does this amount come from criminal activity? The attorney stated, “I am not even accused in this case.”
The senior lawyer went on to say that since there are no scheduled offenses and no criminal proceeds, there is no money laundering. There isn’t any criminal activity, unfair advantage, exchequer loss, or money laundering.
Manish Jain and Simon Benjamin, Special Public Prosecutors (SPPs), and Snehal Sharda, an advocate, represented ED.
SPP Manish Jain refuted the statement of the senior Amanat Ullah Khan attorney. He argued that Amanat Ullah Khan’s involvement was crucial to the success of this entire case.
“A K is at the center of the whole dispute. In the bail dismissal order of three accused individuals, his name occurs 83 times. “Order speaks for itself,” asserted Jain. Laundering money involves layers. He went on, “It’s a deep-rooted conspiracy.”
He added that the prosecution’s complaint (Charge Sheet), which was attached to the petition, was a challenge to the applicant’s summons that had been served to them before the High Court.
On January 19, the court granted other accused parties access to this charge sheet following its receipt.
The petition was dropped since it was not pursued. No freedom was requested or obtained. According to the SPP, you are forfeiting your rights.
This bail application has been misleading about this information. Manish Jain submitted that this is referred to as malicious concealment.
Senior lawyer Guruswamy took issue with SPP Manish Jain’s submissions. Nothing that we have hidden. The prosecutor is not permitted to use such rhetoric. No accused waives their ability to post bail. Furthermore, I am not even charged in this instance.
The SPP Jain then brought up the bail decisions for the three accused.
He said that property valued at Rs. 100 crore had been stolen. ACB is looking into this. He said that Zeeshan and Daud Nasir conspired with Javed Imam Siddiqui and Qausar Imam Siddiqui to act at the applicant’s request.
He restated once more that Amanat Ullah Khan is the central figure in this affair. 22 cases have been filed against him.
A history sheet was opened after he was deemed to have poor character (BC) in the community. It was contested before the High Court of Delhi. The plea was turned down. At the Supreme Court is a Special Leave Petition (SLP) that is now pending.
Jain concluded his arguments by stating that the applicant is subject to the stringent twin condition provision under section 45 of the PMLA. A risk of flight exists. The fear of swaying the witnesses is quite real.
Zeeshan Haider, Daud Nasir, and Jawed Imam Siddiqui are the three arrested defendants whose bail applications were just denied by the court. Qausar Imam Siddiqui, the fourth person arrested, has not yet posted bail.
