Special Judge MG Deshpande minced no phrases to carry that Pravin Raut was arrested for a civil dispute whereas Sanjay Raut was arrested for “no reason.” “This truth is glaring,” he mentioned.

Significantly the bench held that civil litigation was the rationale behind their arrest which was not a predicate offence.

“A1,A2 (Wadhawans) and their HDIL clearly admitted that their misdeeds caused delay and the same was acknowledged by the Hon’ble High Court when the MHADA too consented it. All this has been ignored by ED and caused arrest of both accused by the extreme use of power. In this way both of them were illegally arrested under Sec.19 of the PML Act.“

“Simply labelling pure civil disputes with ‘money laundering’ or ‘an economic offence’ itself cannot automatically acquire such status and ultimately drag an innocent person in a miserable situation in the guise of arrest under section 19 and stringent twin conditions of section 45(1)(i)(ii) of PMLA. The Court has to do what is right irrespective of who is before it,” the choose added.

Case

ED’s case is that Pravin Raut was the Director of an organization known as Guru Ashish Constructions Pvt. Ltd (GACPL), that was accountable for illegally selling the free components of the Patra Chawl redevelopment undertaking in Goregaon whilst a whole lot of residents proceed to attend for a house. The ED alleged that Sanjay Raut by way of his “proxy” Pravin obtained Rs. 3.27 crore as proceeds of crime and laundered it.

Raut was arrested on July 31, 2022 and accused of committing offences beneath part 3 learn with part 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA).

Observations

In his conclusion, Special Judge MG Deshpande held their arrest as unlawful for the ED’s failure to arrest HDIL builders Sarang and Rakesh Wadhwan, who had been the prime accused within the case. As additionally MHADA officers who could also be concerned.

“I hold that both accused are basically arrested illegally. Both of them are entitled to parity in view of the disparity made by the ED in not arresting the main accused persons Rakesh and Sarang, their HDIL, MHADA and government officials responsible for misdeeds of the Wadhawans at the relevant time.”

The choose highlighted the altering stand of the ED whereby the company had initially alleged that the Wadhawans and Pravin Raut was the prime accused and later attributed the “prime accused” position to Raut.

The courtroom mentioned that an harmless particular person could not be dragged right into a dispute within the title of cash laundering and held that the dual circumstances for grant of bail weren’t relevant of their case.

The choose discovered MHADA’s conduct suspicious proper from starting as if filed an FIR in 2018 relating to cases from 2006 – 2013 and noticed that but the ED didn’t make its workers and accused.

“MHADA’s attitude as such lodging FIR No.22 of 2018 on one fine morning can neither throw dust in the eyes of the Court nor can brush off and wash out long civil litigations which were even acknowledged by the Hon’ble High Court. Hence, this Court cannot join its voice in the chorus of ED and MHADA.“

The courtroom famous that the Wadhwan’s had accepted their position and misdeeds in affidavits however have been left “scott free” by ED. “All this clearly indicates disparity, pick and choose attitude of the ED and the Court cannot put premium on the same but legally bound to make parity.“

Finally the choose mentioned that if it nonetheless accepted the competition of ED and MHADA and rejected bail, it could quantity to placing a placing premium on such decide and select methods of the Agency. “Certainly in that event any common man, innocent and honest people, will loose faith and confidence which they have reposed in the judicial system as a temple of justice. Hence, judicial principles which guide the Court cannot be ignored.“

While the choose held that object of PMLA to be laudable, it was the courtroom’s obligation to safeguard it. “Equally the court is protector of rights of accused and innocent persons who are illegally arrested. The Court cannot become predator of such valuable rights of the accused, but is duty bound to be a protector thereof as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. If the Court ignores this aspect, where the people will go for justice?“

Soon after the order was pronounced the ED approached the Bombay High Court bench of Justice Bharati Dangre who agreed to listen to their enchantment tomorrow however refused to remain the bail order.