MUMBAI, Feb 18 (PTI): The Bombay High Court on Saturday asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) why it never arrested the main accused in the Patra Chawl redevelopment project case while seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut.
Sanjay Raut and co-accused Pravin Raut were granted bail by a special court for money laundering cases on November 9, 2022, more than a hundred days after they were arrested.
Related Posts:
The ED moved the HC against the bail the same day and sought an interim stay, but the HC then refused to pass any interim order.
On Saturday, Justice N R Borkar held a special sitting to hear the ED’s plea.
The judge asked why the central agency had not arrested Sarang and Rakesh Wadhawan, promoters of the Housing Development and Infrastructure Ltd (HDIL) who have been named as the main accused.
Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the ED, argued that the special court took into consideration irrelevant material while granting bail.
“The judge has exceeded jurisdiction and rendered a finding against the predicate offence. There are certain observations which were not required and no one had even argued that. Those are uncalled for and not required,” he said.
The ASG further said the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was enacted to take stern action against money laundering.
“It (money laundering) is more serious than murder charge and calls for stern action against persons committing this act,” Singh said.
When Singh was reading out charges against Sarang and Rakesh Wadhawan, the court asked if the ED had arrested the duo in the present case.
Singh said it had not, as they were already in judicial custody in another case, but the ED recorded their statements.
“They are the main accused… there are allegations of money laundering against them… If they are released on bail in a scheduled offence, then what happens? Common allegations are there,” the court said.
The bench also asked Singh to show previous High Court or Supreme Court judgments where bail was cancelled on the ground that the lower court order was perverse.
The hearing would continue on March 2.
