Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case: Court reserves order on AAP MLA Amanat Ullah Khan's anticipatory bail plea

NEW DELHI: The Rouse Avenue court on Saturday reserved order on the anticipatory bail plea of AAP MLA Amanat Ullah Khan for March 1.

This case is related to the purchase of a property of Rs 36 crore in the Okhla area at the alleged behest of Amanat Ullah Khan who is also a sitting MLA from that area.

He has sought anticipatory bail in the Delhi Waqf Board Money Laundering case and has been summoned by the ED in this case.

In this case, the court has dismissed the bail application of three accused namely Zeeshan Haider, Daud Nasir and Jawed Imam Siddiqui.

A charge sheet has already been filed against four accused persons including Qausar Imam Siddiqui.

Special judge Rakesh Syal reserved an order on the application after hearing arguments of ED and counsels for Amanat Ullah Khan.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy along with advocate Rajat Bhardwaj argued on the bail application on behalf of Amanat Ullah Khan.

It was argued by the Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy that in this case, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has registered this ECIR after 8 years (7 years 7 months) of FIR lodged in 2016 by the CBI.

It has been alleged that Rs 100 crore Waqf Properties were given on lease illegally. It is also alleged that 32 contractual employees were appointed to the Delhi Waqf Board during chairmanship of Amanat Ullah Khan flouting the rules.

Senior advocate argued that the CBI concluded in its charge sheet that leasing out properties was administrative irregularities. There were no proceeds of crime, no undue advantage and no loss to the government exchequer.

It was also argued that the big amount is Rs 100 crore similar to the CBI case. They still have to prove a scheduled offence. He was granted bail in a CBI case on March 2023, Guruswamy said.

It was also argued that salaries were paid to the workers for the work done by those employees. No undue advantage by the applicant. No recovery was effected from the applicant.

It was also submitted that on 28 September 2022 accused was granted bail in ACB FIR.

It was held in the order that 32 contractual employees were paid Rs 3 crores salaries through the banking channel. No employee repaid the salary to the applicant. It means there is no undue advantage.

I don't know how I am (Amanat) involved in this case of sale id property. To date, there is no recovery of any sort. Rs 27 crore is a big amount. Where is this amount and how this proceeds to crime? I am not even accused in this case, the counsel argued.

The senior advocate further argued that there is no scheduled offence, no proceeds of crime, and therefore there is no money laundering.

There is no proceed of crime, no undue advantage, no loss to the exchequer, there is no money laundering

"You (ED) can not lodge a new FIR on receipt of any new information. You can not have two FIR for the same cause," Guruswamy argued.

Special public prosecutors (SPP) Manish Jain and Simon Benjamin along with Advocate Snehal Sharda appeared for ED.

SPP Manish Jain rebutted the submission made by the senior advocate for Amanat Ullah Khan.

He submitted that This entire case banked upon the role of Amanat Ullah Khan.

"At the nucleus of the entire controversy is A K. His name appears 83 times in the bail dismissal order of three accused persons. Order speaks for itself," Jain argued.

"Money laundering is layering. It is a deep-rooted conspiracy," he added.

He further argued that the summons issued to the applicant was challenged before the High Court and the Prosecution Complaint (Charge Sheet) was also annexed with the petition.

This charge sheet was given to the other accused on January 19, after cognizance of the same taken by the court.

The petition was withdrawn as not pressed. No liberty was sought or granted. You are giving up your rights, the SPP submitted.

This fact has been concealed in this bail application. This is called malicious concealment, Manish Jain submitted.

Senior advocate Guruswamy objected to the submissions of the SPP Manish Jain. We have concealed nothing. The prosecutor can't use this kind of language. No accused gives up his right to bail. And I am not even accused in this case.

Thereafter the SPP Jain Referred to bail orders of three accused.

He submitted that Misappropriated worth Rs 100 crore property. ACB is investigating. Zeeshan and Daud Nasir acted on the behest of the applicant in connivance with Javed Imam Siddiqui and Qausar Imam Siddiqui, he added.

He again reiterated that At the nucleus of the case is Amanat Ullah Khan. There were 22 cases registered against him

He was declared bad character (BC) of the area and a history sheet was opened. It was challenged before the Delhi High Court. The plea was dismissed. Special Leave Petition (SLP) is pending before the Supreme court.

Concluding his arguments Jain said that rigorous provision of twin conditions under section 45 of PMLA applies to the applicant. There is a flight risk. There is great apprehension of influencing the witnesses.

The conduct of the application is that the application of the applicant should be dismissed. Money laundering is concerned is stand alone offence, SPP Jain submitted.

Menaka Guruswamy rebutted and submitted that during the hearing of the SLP, before the Supreme Court, The law officer submitted that there is a need to amend the rules of the Punjab police rule related to the opening of the history sheet.

"This was not told to the court. This is the concealment. This was the submission by the ASG before the supreme court," Guruswamy contended.

She added that he has been Discharged in 20 cases. He is not at flight risk as he is a sitting MLA of Delhi Vidhan Sabha and Two times earlier also.

This case is not connected with the Delhi Waqf Board. I am (Amanat Ullah Khan) not accused in the case. Can I be denied bail on the grounds of a previous case, she concluded.