New Delhi: The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea filed by Maharashtra Minister and NCP leader Nawab Malik on Friday, against an order of the Bombay High Court. The HC had rejected his interim application seeking immediate release in a case of money laundering being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
‘You can apply for bail before the competent court. We will not interfere right now at this case. It’s too nascent for us to interfere at this stage’, said a bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud. The bench dismissed Malik’s plea seeking release from judicial custody in the money laundering case involving underworld don Dawood Ibrahim which is being investigated by the ED. It said, ‘We will not entertain. Dismissed’.
Malik has challenged the March 15 order of the Bombay High Court which had rejected his application saying just because the special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court’s order remanding him in custody is not in his favour, it does not make that order illegal or wrong. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Malik, questioned how the Prevention of Money Laundering Act can apply since there is no predicate offence. After the Enforcement Directorate had arrested Malik under the provisions of the PMLA, he had filed a habeas corpus plea in the High Court claiming that his arrest by the ED and the consequent remands were illegal.
Also read: ‘India, UK to work on Free Trade Agreement by year end’: says PM Modi
The High Court had said that Malik was arrested by the ED in accordance with the law, and subsequently been remanded to the ED’s custody and then to judicial custody following due process. ED had arrested Minorities Development Minister Malik on February 23 over a property deal allegedly linked to the aides of gangster Dawood Ibrahim. ED had accused Malik of being part of an alleged criminal conspiracy to usurp a property in Mumbai’s Kurla area which currently has a market value of Rs 300 crore and belongs rightfully to one Munira Plumber. However, Malik had submitted before the High Court that he had bought the property in a bonafide transaction three decades ago.
Post Your Comments