ED Misused Its Powers To Arrest, Acted As Per Its Whims & Fancies: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Accused In PMLA Case
The Bombay High Court last week while granting bail to a man arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) observed that the anti-money laundering agency "misused" its powers of arrest and acted as per this own "whims and fancies."
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan slammed the ED for arresting the petitioner Deepak Deshmukh in a predicate offence lodged way back eighty years ago (in 2016) in which he was neither named nor chargesheeted. The judges noted that the money-laundering case lodged by the ED alleged that the petitioner received nearly Rs 49.50 lakhs from the total proceed of crime to the tune of Rs 69 crores. They further noted that the ED summoned the petitioner on three different occasions and he responded to the same and even continued to cooperate with the probe.
It was only after the High Court ordered probe against a BJP MLA on a complaint filed by the petitioner regarding a scam during Covid19 times, the bench noted that the ED raided the house of the petitioner and arrested him on September 4, 2024 and produced him before a special court on the next day. He was remanded to ED custody and then on September 12, he was sent to Judicial Custody.
Further, the judges noted that the 'grounds of arrest' and the 'reasons to believe' supplied to the petitioner by the ED sleuths were identical.
"Both the documents furnished to the petitioner are, prima facie, sans application of mind by the ED. Prima facie, it appears that custody of the petitioner was sought despite the ED having already in possession, the relevant documents of which there is no question of getting the same tampered with. Prima facie, we find that the ED has misused it's power of arrest which are not in consonance with the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Mandanlal Choudhary as well as in the case of Arvind Kejriwal. Prima facie, it appears that the powers have been exercised on the basis of whims, caprice or fancy of the investigating officer," the bench held in the October 25 order.
The bench further held that the arrest of the petitioner on September 4 and subsequent remand orders were 'illegal' and were passed in sheer ignorance of the rule laid down in the Arvind Kejriwal's case.
The judges, therefore, granted interim relief of bail to the petitioner observing that the "right to life and liberty is sacrosanct in view of the constitutional mandate."
Appearance:
Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola along with Advocates Vaibhav Gaikwad, TS Mali and Sandeep Karnik appeared for the Petitioner.
Special Public Prosecutor Sandesh Patil along with Advocates Krishnakant Deshmukh and Shubhankar Kulkarni represented the ED.
Additional Public Prosecutor Prajakta Shinde represented the State.
Case Title: Deepak Deshmukh vs Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) 20120 of 2024)