A public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Aam Aadmi Party in 2014 led to the formation of a Special Investigation Team to examine the case. Bhujbal was booked in two FIRs under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday, January 21, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) seeking to cancel the bail granted to Chhagan Bhujbal, former Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister and current NCP MLA, and his nephew Sameer Bhujbal. The case is linked to allegations of money laundering in the Maharashtra Sadan scam.
ALSO READ: ED Charges AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan in Waqf Board Money Laundering Case
The bench, comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, stated, “Impugned orders granting bail have been passed way back in the year 2018. Therefore, at this stage no case for interference is made out under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The SLPs are dismissed.”
The Court also addressed a plea by Chhagan Bhujbal challenging the Bombay High Court’s 2016 decision rejecting his challenge to his arrest in the money laundering case.
The bench remarked, “As the petitioner has been enlarged on bail in 2018, it is not necessary at this stage to go into the question of illegality of the arrest of the petition. However, that issue will remain open which can be agitated by the petitioner at the appropriate stage in an appropriate petition.”
Background
Chhagan Bhujbal, currently serving as the MLA from Yeola Constituency, joined the Ajit Pawar camp after the NCP split and became part of the ruling BJP–Shiv Sena coalition. His arrest on March 14, 2016, followed allegations of money laundering under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The allegations centered around irregularities in awarding contracts for the construction of Maharashtra Sadan in Delhi and Kalina Library at Mumbai University during his tenure as Maharashtra’s Public Works Department Minister.
A public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Aam Aadmi Party in 2014 led to the formation of a Special Investigation Team to examine the case. Bhujbal was booked in two FIRs under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act. These included charges of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and corruption. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) alleged that Bhujbal and his family laundered approximately Rs.900 crores, resulting in the registration of a money laundering case by the ED.
ALSO READ: ‘Lottery King’ Santiago Martin | SC Stays Trial in Money Laundering Case
On December 14, 2016, the Bombay High Court rejected Bhujbal’s petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus against his arrest by the ED. The court ruled that his arrest and remand were neither wholly illegal nor without jurisdiction. In May 2018, the Bombay High Court granted bail to Bhujbal, imposing strict conditions such as surrendering his passport and seeking permission before leaving Mumbai.
In March 2018, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Central Government regarding Bhujbal’s plea against the Bombay High Court’s decision. Bhujbal’s legal team argued that his arrest violated constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 22 and that the ED failed to provide valid grounds for his arrest. However, the Supreme Court did not immediately grant him bail and sought the government’s response first.
ALSO READ: Low Conviction Rates in Money Laundering Cases |”Improve Prosecution Quality”: SC to ED
In September 2021, a Special Court discharged Bhujbal, his son, and others in the Maharashtra Sadan scam case investigated by the ACB. The court found no prima facie evidence of conspiracy or illegal transactions involving Bhujbal. Bhujbal maintained that decisions on awarding contracts were made collectively and that no evidence supported allegations of kickbacks.
In December 2021, the Bombay High Court dismissed Bhujbal’s challenge to a show-cause notice issued by the Income Tax Department for income allegedly escaping assessment for the financial year 2012-13. The court upheld the IT department’s actions, stating that there was tangible material justifying the reopening of assessments.
Case Title – Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v. Union of India and Ors. and connected cases
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
