On 1st March,The Rouse Avenue court rejected AAP MLA Amanat Ullah Khan’s anticipatory bail plea in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case, concerning a Rs 36 crore property purchase. The defense argued administrative irregularities without evidence of a scheduled offense. The prosecution emphasized Amanat Ullah Khan’s central role, with the court yet to release the detailed order.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Rouse Avenue court on Friday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Amanat Ullah Khan, a sitting AAP MLA, in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case. The case revolves around the alleged purchase of a property worth Rs 36 crore in the Okhla area, purportedly at the direction of Amanat Ullah Khan.
Amanat Ullah Khan had moved the court seeking anticipatory bail after being summoned by the Enforcement Directorate(ED). Earlier, the court had rejected the bail application of three other accused individuals – Zeeshan Haider, Daud Nasir, and Jawed Imam Siddiqui. A chargesheet, which includes Qausar Imam Siddiqui, has already been filed against the accused.
Special judge Rakesh Syal dismissed the bail application after careful consideration of arguments presented by counsels for the ED and the AAP lawmaker.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, along with advocate Rajat Bhardwaj, represented Amanat Ullah Khan during the bail application proceedings. Guruswamy argued that the ED registered the ECIR eight years after the CBI’s FIR in 2016. She contended that the leasing of Waqf properties, worth Rs 100 crores, and the appointment of 32 contractual employees in violation of rules were administrative irregularities but lacked evidence of a scheduled offense.
Guruswamy highlighted-
“The argument around the big amount of Rs 100 crore is similar to the CBI case. They still have to prove a scheduled offence. He was granted bail in the CBI case on March 2023.” She further stated that no undue advantage or loss to the government exchequer was proven.
The defense argued that salaries were duly paid to the contractual employees for their work, and there was no undue advantage or recovery from Amanat Ullah Khan. Quoting a previous order, Guruswamy stated-
“32 contractual employees were paid Rs 3 crore salaries through the banking channel, and no employee repaid the salary to the applicant. This means there was no undue advantage.”
Guruswamy questioned the involvement of her client in the property sale, emphasizing-
“I don’t know how my client (Amanat) is involved in this case of the sale of property. To date, there has been no recovery of any sort. Rs 27 crore is a big amount. Where is this amount and how is it the proceed of crime? My client is not even an accused in this case.”
The defense further contested the ED’s actions, asserting-
“There is no scheduled offence, no proceeds of crime, and, therefore, there is no money laundering.” Guruswamy challenged the ED’s ability to file a new FIR on the same case, stating, “You (ED) cannot have two FIRs for the same case.”
ALSO READ: A Former High Court Judge Was Cheated into Giving Rs 2.5 Crore For Fake Electoral Bonds
Special public prosecutors (SPP) Manish Jain and Simon Benjamin, along with Advocate Snehal Sharda, represented the ED. SPP Manish Jain rebutted Guruswamy’s arguments, emphasizing that the entire case revolves around the role of Amanat Ullah Khan. He pointed out that Amanat Ullah Khan‘s name appeared 83 times in the bail dismissal order of three accused persons.
Jain argued-
“At the nucleus of the entire controversy is A.K. His name appears 83 times in the bail dismissal order of three accused persons. The order speaks for itself.”
He also mentioned the challenge to the summons issued to Amanat Ullah Khan before the high court, asserting that the prosecution complaint (chargesheet) was annexed to the petition.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Directed Central Government Over Standardized Healthcare Cost Gap
The SPP raised concerns about the withdrawal of the petition without seeking or granting any liberty, stating-
“This fact has been concealed in this bail application. This is called malicious concealment.”
The dismissal of Amanat Ullah Khan’s anticipatory bail plea marks a crucial development in the ongoing Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case. With both sides presenting compelling arguments, the legal battle intensifies, shedding light on the intricacies of the allegations against the AAP MLA. The detailed order, yet to be uploaded, is anticipated to provide further clarity on the court’s decision.
