Shiv Sena MLA Pratap Sarnaik is charged in a money laundering case. (Archive)
Mumbai:
On Monday, the Bombay High Court overturned and overturned a session court order rejecting the Enforcement Directorate’s request for an extension of the pre-trial detention of Amit Chandole, an alleged associate of Shiv Sena MLA Pratap Sarnaik, arrested in a money laundering case.
Sarnaik is also charged in the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
A court of sessions on November 29 rejected the request of the Directorate of Execution (ED) for an extension of the pretrial detention of Chandole, who was detained by the agency on November 25.
ED is investigating the role of Mr. Chandole and the alleged suspicious deals with Sarnaik and a private company that provides security services.
On Monday, Mumbai HC Judge Prithviraj K Chavan ordered the PMLA special court in the city to reconsider the DE’s sentence for increased custody of Chandole and issue the corresponding orders by the end of the day.
Judge Chavan ordered all parties in the case to appear in special court at 3 p.m. Monday for reconsideration of the ED’s statement.
On Friday, Judge Chavan had reserved his order after extensive arguments from ED’s Additional Attorney General (ASG), Anil Singh, and Mr. Chandole’s attorney, Rizwan Merchant.
Additional Attorney General Singh had told the HC that the special court that rejected the ED’s statement during a vacation session on November 29 (Sunday) had made a mistake in doing so, and that the order denying additional custody of Mr. .Chandole was wrong and bad law.
He had said that the DE was obliged to examine voluminous bank records, data and paperwork, including data from the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) to confront Chandole.
The same would take time, and therefore their additional custody was essential, Singh had said.
Attorney Rizwan Merchant had told the HC that the court of special sessions followed due process in rejecting the ED’s request for increased custody of Chandole, as the agency had failed to leave adequate documentary evidence and reasons to show on file. the facts of Mr. participation in the case.
Merchant had also said that the DE was insisting on the custody of Mr. Chandole just to catch Sarnaik. However, Additional Attorney General Singh had argued that Chandole was a defendant in a PMLA case, a felony that constituted an “organized attempt to disrupt the country’s economy.”
He had urged the court to grant custody of Mr.Chandole for
at least five or six days.
Previously, Chandole was in ED custody and was filed in the PMLA special court on November 29. The session judge had sent Chandole into judicial custody until December 9.
The case against Mr. Chandole and Sarnaik relates to a complaint filed by a former employee Ramesh Iyyer of the private security company Tops Security Group.
Iyyer alleged that in 2014, in a contract with MMRDA for the supply of 350 to 500 guards, the security company had delivered only 70 percent of guards and part of the amount paid by MMRDA went to the defendants’ private accounts.
.
