The Bombay High Court Vacation Bench on Sunday overturned a special vacation court order that had refused the custody of the Directorate of Execution (ED) former interior minister of Maharashtra, Anil Deskhmukh, and remanded him for 14 days in a money laundering case.
The High Court has now remanded Deshmukh on remand until November 12 (Friday) after Deshmukh’s lawyers said he was ready to face a detention investigation for nearly four days and consented that the special court order be set aside.
A special holiday court in Mumbai on Saturday refused to grant the ED additional custody of Deshmukh and sent the senior NCP official to judicial detention for two weeks.
The ED moved a precipice to HC on Saturday night to challenge the court’s special order, which was heard on Sunday by a single-judge vacation bench of Judge Madhav J Jamdar.
The ED arrested Deshmukh on Tuesday (November 2) and was placed in police custody for four days, until Saturday, by a holiday court. On Saturday, Special Judge Prashant R Sitre dismissed ED’s plea asking for an additional nine days of Deshmukh’s detention.
The ED investigation claimed that Deshmukh, while serving as interior minister of Maharashtra, “received an illegal gratuity of approximately 4.7 crore rupees in cash from various orchestra bar owners” between December 2020 and February 2021 via the now sacked Mumbai police officer Sachin Waze. .
According to the ED, Deshmukh’s family âlaundered the tainted sum of Rs 4.18 crore and projected it as uncontaminated by showing the same amount received by the trust, namely Shri Sai Shikshan Sansthaâ.
The ED investigation into Deshmukh’s financial transactions is in line with the CBI’s investigation into the corruption allegations of former Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh against the NCP chief. The CBI launched a preliminary investigation on the basis of an order from the HC of April 5 and registered the FIR on April 21. Deshmukh has denied the allegations.
The ED, in its request for criminal review in HC against the order of the special court, declared: to be put aside. The court judge should have understood that the investigation of colossal fraud and money laundering cases like this cannot be completed in a short period of time.
The agency, through Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh, requested an emergency hearing and said that in this case only five days in custody had been granted for investigating the case. a deal “generating millions of rupees”, two days of which were bank holidays or Diwali. “It is practically impossible to investigate in such a short period of time and especially at the present time when people aware of the facts of the case invoke grounds for investigation,” said the plea.
Singh said ED moved HC urgently because, by order of November 6, Deshmukh was remanded into custody. This was done as part of an investigation into the detention and as the respondent Deshmukh gave elusive answers, further investigation was essential.
Senior lawyer Vikram Chaudhri and lawyer Aniket Nikam for Deshmukh, on instructions, said their client was prepared to face a detention investigation for around four days. Chaudhri said that while he may raise arguments regarding the maintainability of the review request, as well as the merits of the case but on instructions, he makes such a declaration that the special court order can be set aside and canceled by consent. ASG Singh has requested custody until November 12.
After reviewing the special court order, Judge Jamdar noted: âAt first glance, there is substance in the assertions made by ASG Singh and also in the assertions made in the review request regarding the legality of the contested order. However, as Chaudhri made a voluntary declaration on behalf of the Respondent Deshmukh, I do not go into the details of those aspects. “
The court referred to the Gujarat HC judgment of 2009, which stated that âan order denying pre-trial detention has a direct bearing on the conduct of the trial itself and, in a given case, will certainly have an effect. on the final decision of the case â. Gujarat HC had ruled that an order refusing to grant pre-trial detention by the police would be the final order and that a request for review against it would be sustainable.
âIn view of Chaudhri’s statement for Deshmukh, the impugned order dated November 6 passed by the special holiday court is quashed and quashed. Respondent Deshmukh is detained by ED from November 7 to 12, âJudge Jamdar held and ruled on ED’s plea.