SC rejects bail plea of Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik in cash laundering case
By Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain the petition filed by Maharashtra Minister Nawab Malik difficult his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate underneath the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2005.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal showing for Malik stated that the Arnab Goswami case order is in his favour. He questioned the applicability of PMLA within the case.
“There is no predicate offence here,” he stated.
“We are not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 when the investigation is at the nascent stage…You can apply for bail before an appropriate court”, the highest court docket stated.
The probe company had arrested the state minister on February 23 in a probe linked to a cash laundering case over an alleged land deal regarding an aide of worldwide terrorist Dawood Ibrahim. He has been underneath custody ever since his arrest.
The particular depart petition was filed difficult a Bombay High court docket that had refused to grant him interim launch.
“What we prima facie feel is that projection/claiming a property as untainted property is the objectionable act forming part of an offence under Section 3 of the Act of 2002… We have not gone into the papers of investigation…Considering all the above-referred grounds; we are not inclined to allow the prayers in the said applications. Resultantly, Interim Applications are rejected,” the Bombay excessive court docket had stated in an order dated March 15, 2022, whereas rejecting the pleas.
The excessive court docket had stated that the case failed the dual check for launch from custody.
“…In the present case, there is no dispute on the factual aspect that custody order is passed by the competent Court of jurisdiction i.e., the Special Court and secondly, merely because the order is against the Petitioner it cannot be termed as patently illegal or suffers from non-application of mind. In our opinion, this twin test is duly applied in the present matter…,” the excessive court docket added in its order.
