Nawab Malik Withdraws Plea Alleging Delay In Bail Hearing, Supreme Court Grants Him Liberty to Challenge Bombay HC’s Decision To Deny Interim Bail

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi was hearing a special leave petition filed by Malik against May 2 order of the Bombay High Court adjourning his medical bail application to June 6. Last week, the Bombay High Court refused to grant the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader interim bail on medical grounds and directed the matter to be listed after two weeks to be heard on its merits. The prolonged pendency in the bail application, the petitioner has argued, is contrary to the principles of law laid down by the top court and a ground for his release on interim bail in view of his deteriorating health condition.

However, since the current petition challenged only an order of the high court adjourning Malik’s bail hearing, the court pointed out that it had become infructuous. “You will have to withdraw this petition and challenge the order rejecting interim bail,” Justice Khanna told Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who was appearing for the embattled legislator, who agreed to withdraw the petition.

Accordingly, the bench pronounced:

“The senior advocate appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this special leave petition in view of subsequent developments, with liberty to challenge the order passed by the high court. Taking the statement on record, the special leave petition is dismissed with liberty as prayed for.”

Background

The Enforcement Directorate arrested Nawab Malik on February 23 of last year in connection with an alleged money laundering case linked to fugitive underworld don Dawood Ibrahim and his aides. According to the investigating agency, Malik connived with D-gang member and Ibrahim’s sister, Haseena Parker, and two others, and usurped a property in Mumbai’s Kurla between 1999 and 2006. The agency has alleged that since Parkar handled the illegal business of the notorious gangster and global terrorist, the money that Malik allegedly paid her, was ultimately used for terror funding, slapping charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act on the former legislator.

After a special court refused to grant him bail in November of last year, Malik approached the Bombay High Court. However, owing to his deteriorating health, Malik has been in custody at a private hospital to ensure continuous medical supervision.

During the hearing, the Bombay High Court wondered how bail could be granted despite the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Finally, yesterday, a single-judge bench of Justice Anuja Prabhudessai refused to grant Malik temporary bail, while directing the matter to be listed after two weeks to be heard on merits.

In the meantime, the former minister approached the Supreme Court, aggrieved by the adjournments granted by the high court in his bail hearing. The petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record Jayant Mohan, states:

“Though the application has been listed on 16 occasions, it has not been heard finally and decided till date, due to the matter not reaching, paucity of time, change in the roster or such other reasons and on the last date of hearing the matter has been adjourned on the ground that the additional solicitor-general appearing for the Enforcement Directorate is not available.”

The prolonged pendency of a bail petition, it has been submitted, is inconsistent with the basic precepts governing the right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, besides flying in the face of the law as laid down by the top court. When this matter was taken up by the Supreme Court earlier this year, in May, a bench headed by Justice Khanna adjourned the hearing, observing that the high court could not be bypassed. Directing the matter to be listed again in the second week of July, the bench pronounced, “In the meanwhile, we request the High Court to take up the pending bail application for hearing and disposal.”

Last week, the top court adjourned the hearing in the petition once again, at the behest of the petitioner. However, Justice Khanna, while allowing the counsel to seek instructions, was clear that the matter was already 'over', since the high court had heard and rejected the prayer for interim bail. "You may challenge that," the judge told the counsel.

Case Details

Mohammed Nawab Malik v. the State of Maharashtra | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6056 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order