Delhi HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail Plea Of AAP MLA Amanat Ullah Khan

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed AAP MLA Amanat Ullah Khan's anticipatory bail plea. He sought anticipatory ball in the Delhi Waqf Board Money Laundering case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the plea with some strict remarks and observations. She said that elected representatives and public figures are not above the law and a separate class cannot be created for political leaders.

He was summoned six times by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) but did not appear. His earlier plea was dismissed by the trial court.

Justice Sharma rejected the petitioner's contention that he might have been arrested if he had appeared before the ED.

The High Court said that if such submissions were to be accepted that the accused might get arrested during the investigation, no person would ever enter the office of any investigating agency.

This Court cannot allow a new jurisprudence or a new set of rules, the High Court said.

"Even the lawmakers should know that disobeying the law will have legal consequences as all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law," Justice Sharma said.

The bench said that there can be treatment under the same law. entitlement to different

The bench further said that investigating agencies in India had the right to conduct an investigation. To conclude, an MLA or any public figure is not above the law of the land, the court said.

"Actions of such public figures are observed closely by the public. This sets a bad precedent," Justice Sharma pointed out.

The High Court observed that the AAP MLA avoided six summons issued by the ED.

"Such avoidance of multiple summons is impermissible by law," the High Court said.

By avoiding the summons he obstructed the investigation and obstruction in the investigation is an obstruction in the administration of justice, the High Court said.

The high court also said that the conduct of the petitioner of not cooperating with the investigation is an erosion of the criminal justice system.

The High Court also noted that the property in question was purchased for Rs 36 crore and Rs 27 crores was paid in cash. The existence of two agreements to sell also creates doubt.

The high court said, "People also have a right to know what is the truth when their leader whom they have elected is being probed."

"Seeing the conduct of the accused for non-joining of investigation, there is no ground for granting anticipatory bail," Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

The High Court reserved the order on the bail plea on March 4, 2024.

It was stated that there is no bribe amount involved therefore there is no generation of Proceeds of Crime which leaves no scope of applicant's involvement in any activity of placement, layering and/or integration of any proceeds of crime and as such, there is no question of any violation of the provisions of the PMLA.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the ED that the petitioner has been issued several summons and he has been evading the same. His bail plea has already been dismissed by the trial court.

The Rouse Avenue court on March 1 dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of AAP MLA Amanat Ullah Khan.

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

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.

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 in the Delhi Waqf Board during the chairmanship. of Amanat Ullah Khan flouting the rules,

It was argued before the trial court 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 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.

(ANI)