On Monday (11th March): The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan in a money laundering case. Khan’s plea was dismissed as he repeatedly failed to respond to summonses issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The case revolves around alleged irregularities in the Delhi Waqf Board’s recruitment process during Khan’s tenure as Chairman.
NEW DELHI: On Monday, March 11, the Delhi High Court declined anticipatory bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan concerning a money laundering investigation linked to purported irregularities within the Delhi Waqf Board’s recruitment process and property leasing.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed Khan’s plea for anticipatory bail, highlighting his recurrent failure to respond to summonses issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), deeming it tantamount to obstructing justice and trust in the legal system.
The Court firmly stated that public figures, like Khan, must not evade investigation summons, and emphasized that such individuals are not exempt from legal obligations. Refusal to cooperate with investigative agencies undermines public trust, the Court emphasized.
Justice Sharma emphasized that investigative agencies perform public service, reiterating that Khan, as a public representative, should have adhered to ED summonses to clarify his involvement in the case.
“Repeated disobedience of summons of the investigating agency is equivalent to obstruction of investigation. Obstruction of investigation is equivalent to obstruction of administration of justice, and if this is allowed to continue, it will erode trust and confidence in the criminal justice system, which will lead to anarchy,” the Court said.
Dismissing Khan’s claim of being occupied with public duties as a reason for non-appearance, the Court ruled that such excuses cannot justify repeated disobedience to summons.
Khan’s plea for anticipatory bail was earlier dismissed by a trial court on March 1. Subsequently, he appealed to the High Court, contending innocence and alleging unjust targeting by the ED with unsubstantiated claims.
Khan’s plea contended that
“Since there was no involvement of bribe amounts, there could be no proceeds of crime generated, thereby eliminating any possibility of his participation in activities related to the placement, layering, or integration of illicit funds. As a result, he asserted that there was no violation of the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)”.
The case revolves around purported irregularities in Delhi Waqf Board recruitment during Khan’s tenure as Chairman, initially investigated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau before the ED proceedings ensued.
Khan’s previous plea challenging the ED and ACB cases was withdrawn on February 7.
