Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case: Court denies anticipatory bail to AAP MLA Amanat Ullah Khan

New Delhi [India], March 1 : The Rouse Avenue court on Friday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of AAP MLA Amanat Ullah Khan in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case. The case relates to the purchase of a property worth Rs 36 crore in the Okhla area allegedly at the behest of Amanat Ullah Khan, a sitting AAP MLA from the area.
The MLA had moved court seeking anticipatory bail in the Waqf Board money laundering case after being summoned by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).
Earlier, the court dismissed the bail application of three other accused--Zeeshan Haider, Daud Nasir and Jawed Imam Siddiqui.
A chargesheet has already been filed against the accused persons, including Qausar Imam Siddiqui.
Special judge Rakesh Syal dismissed the bail application after considering the arguments of counsels for the ED and the AAP lawmaker.
The detailed order is yet to be uploaded.
Earlier, on February 24, the court had reserved the order on the plea.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy along with advocate Rajat Bhardwaj had argued on the bail application on behalf of Amanat Ullah Khan.
It was argued by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy argued that the ED registered the ECIR after 8 years (7 years 7 months) of the CBI's FIR registered in 2016.
It was alleged that Waqf properties, worth Rs 100 crores, were given on lease illegally and 32 contractual employees were appointed in Delhi Waqf Board during the chairmanship of Amanat Ullah Khan, in violation of rules.
The senior advocate argued that the CBI concluded in its chargesheet that leasing out properties amounted to administrative irregularities, adding that there were no proceeds of crime, undue advantage and loss to the government exchequer.
"The argument around the big amount of Rs 100 crore is similar to the CBI case. They still have to prove a scheduled offence. He was granted bail in the 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. However, the applicant derived no undue advantage and neither was any recovery made from him," she added.
It was also submitted that on September 28, 2022, the accused MLA was granted bail in the ACB FIR.
"It was held in the order that 32 contractual employees were paid Rs 3 crore salaries through the banking channel and no employee repaid the salary to the applicant. This means there was no undue advantage," the counsel for the AAP MLA noted.
"I don't know how my client (Amanat) is involved in this case of the sale of property. To date, there has been no recovery of any sort. Rs 27 crore is a big amount. Where is this amount and how is it the proceed of crime? My client is not even an accused in this case," the counsel argued.
"There is no scheduled offence, no proceeds of crime, and, therefore, there is no money laundering," she added.
"You (ED) cannot file a new FIR on receipt of any new information. You cannot have two FIRs for the same case," Guruswamy argued.
Special public prosecutors (SPP) Manish Jain and Simon Benjamin alongwith Advocate Snehal Sharda appeared for the ED.
SPP Manish Jain rebutted the submission made by the senior advocate for Amanat Ullah Khan, submitting that the entire case is built around 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. The order speaks for itself," Jain argued.
He further argued that The summons issued to the applicant was challenged before the high court and the prosecution complaint (chargesheet) was also annexed with the petition.
This chargesheet was given to the other accused on January 19 after the court took cognisance of the same, the SPP noted.
"The petition was withdrawn as not pressed. No liberty was sought or granted. You are giving up your rights," the SPP submitted, adding, "This fact has been concealed in this bail application. This is called malicious concealment."
Senior advocate Guruswamy, however, objected to the submissions of the SPP Jain, saying, "We have concealed nothing. The prosecutor can't use this kind of language. No accused gives up his right to bail. My client is not even an accused in this case."
Thereafter, the SPP referred to the bail orders of the three accused.
He submitted that property worth Rs 100 crore was misappropriated. "The ACB is investigating. Zeeshan and Daud Nasir acted at the behest of the applicant in connivance with Javed Imam Siddiqui and Qausar Imam Siddiqui," he added.
He reiterated that Amanat Ullah Khan was at the nucleus of the case, as 22 cases were registered against him.
"He was declared a bad character (BC) of the area and a history sheet was opened. It was challenged before the Delhi High Court. The plea, however, was dismissed. A special leave petition (SLP) is pending before the Supreme Court," the SPP noted.
Closing his arguments, Jain said rigorous provision of the twin conditions under section 45 of PMLA applies to the applicant. "There is a flight risk. There is great apprehension of the MLA influencing witnesses in the case," he added.
"The application of the applicant should be dismissed. Money laundering is considered a standalone offence," SPP Jain submitted.
At this, Menaka Guruswamy rebutted, submitting that during the hearing on the SLP before the Supreme Court, the law officer submitted that there was a need to amend the rules of Punjab Police rule related to the opening of a history sheet.
"This court wasn't informed of this. This is concealment. This was the submission by the ASG before the supreme court," Guruswamy argued.
She added that he had been discharged in 20 cases and was not a flight risk as he is a sitting MLA of Delhi and had been a lawmaker twice before.
"It is a private property case. None of the properties belong to the Delhi Waqf Board. None of the accused is a public officer," she submitted, adding, "This case is not connected to the Delhi Waqf Board. My client is (Amanat Ullah Khan) not accused in the case. Can he be denied bail on the grounds of a previous case?"