Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Transferring PMLA Case After Judge Said 'ED Matters Me Kaunsi Bail Hoti Hain'

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday set aside a trial court order transferring Bhushan Steel money laundering case from one judge to another, after one of the accused alleged that the judge passed a comment expressing "ED matters me kaun si bail hoti hai?”

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the alleged comment did not reflect any apprehension of bias against the accused or something in favour of the prosecuting agency.

The court remanded the matter back to the Principal District & Sessions Judge while asking the court to decide the transfer application afresh after calling comments from the concerned judge and taking into consideration the observations made in today's order.

Observing that judges also have a right to protect their reputation, Justice Sharma underscored that conversations between judges and court staff are confidential in nature.

The court said that reputation of a judge is built upon years of dedicated service and that a judge ought to guard the reputation.

The court said that VC technology is a common feature nowadays however its widespread use opens possibilities of misuse where judges are vulnerable.

The court said that the facility has side effects and has the potential for anyone attending the hearing to raise an allegation against judges and court staff based on overheard conversations.

Observing that transferring cases based on overheard conversations will undermine the dignity of the court and threaten the integrity of entire judiciary, Justice Sharma said that such apprehension must not be entertained without any evidence.

Justice Sharma disposed of ED's plea against the transfer order. The application seeking transfer of proceedings was moved by accused Ajay S. Mittal. He alleged that while his bail plea was pending before the judge, his wife, once the counsels left the court room, heard the judge saying “lene do datein, ED matters me kaun si bail hoti hai.” This was after the court staff enquired something.

It was ED's case that the only averment resulting in transfer of the case was that the accused's wife heard the judge say that “ED cases me bail nahi milte.”

ED, represented by special counsel Zoheb Hossain, contended that the averment of the wife was accepted by the trial court as a gospel truth and that neither any report was called from the judge in question nor any verification was done.

It was also said that it was a classic case of forum shopping and that if a party who chooses to caste aspersion on a judge only to ensure that he does not hear the case causes problem in the entire criminal justice system.

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi had appeared for the accused and said that the impugned order was an administrative order merely transferring a case from one judge to another.

Before the trial court, the accused had alleged that the comments of the judge came as a shock to him and there was a reasonable apprehension that the presiding officer was sitting with "pre-determined and pre-judicial mind” to dismiss his bail application.

While transferring the case, the trial court had observed that the perception and view point of the accused stating that he did not expect impartial hearing from the court, has to be given due regard.

Title: ED v. Ajay S Mittal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 646