Thread by @barandbench

#BombayHighCourt to hear plea filed by Cabinet Minister #NawabMalik against the proceedings initiated, arrest and custody by #EnforcementDirectorate and order of #PMLA Court shortly.

@dir_ed @nawabmalikncp @OfficeofNM

Bench of Justices SB Shukre and NJ Jamadar will hear the petition.

Read details: bit.ly/3CaahRV

ASG Anil Singh seeks time to file reply to the petition.

Court: Reply is required in the matter.

Sr Adv Amit Desai: Reply is not required. The fundamental issue we have raised here is that a gentleman has been arrested with two sets of transactions for which he is not concerned

Desai: His family is not concerned. It is a transaction of 1999.
A set of transactions are found in remand applications. The first of 1999 is where the petitioner is involved. The second transaction is 2003 and 2005. This is where the petitioner’s family is involved.

Desai: The particular company in the secomd transaction became the leaseholder of that property. One Salil Patel was purported to be the owner. The second transaction is indenture of sale of September 2005.

Desai: As far as 1999 is concerned, the owner who has now come forward, in the last few days is talking about the transaction between her and Salim Patel.

Desai: She said I have never met Petitioner, I have dealt with Salim Patel.
2003 and 2005 position appears to be that PoA did not authorise Salil Patel to sell property.

Desai: Hence the property is still hers. With these facts an allegation is made that Salil Patel happened to be the driver of one Haseena Parker.

Desai: Parker was sister of Dawood Ibrahim.
Today, they seemed to have recorded statements of various matters, one of Kaskar who is in judicial custody, and others who are not in custody.

Desai: they have recorded statements of people who are suddenly part of Dawood Ibrahim, and not all have mentioned Malik’s name also.

Desai: Please check the remand application. There are constitutional grounds here. Ex-facie constitutional rigjts have been violated. Milordships may see.

Desai: An FIR is registered by NIA against Kaskar that he is a global terrorist. There are set of names and Malik is not in them.

Desai: Why should Petitioner get caught up something that relegates back to concerns of the nation.
Kaskar was arrested inder MCOCA and is now in judicial custody.

Desai: Another FIR was registered by Iqbal Mirchi.
In that also there is no Malik.

Desai: We are not concerned with any of those matters. This is only to create an impression, a false impression@m, between this group and Malik who is a phbkic figure.

Desai: There is no reference to Malik and there is no indication that the statements recorded (as said in remand) are mentioned in any FIR

Desai: The first reference to Nawab Malik is for sale of a property. Kaskar was a prominent so he was arrested by ED. During that time, he mentioned about Parker, whi mentioned about Munira Plumber.

Desai: Everybody is connected to extortion according to ED. And these statements have assumed lot of credibility.

Desai: Plumber owned a plot of land, and she was collecting rent. There was encroachment, and she gave PoA to Salim Patel to remove the encroachments. The PoA is not disputed. So far it is owner, Malik is not in picture.

Desai: Plumber explained that she had not sold this property to Malik. She found that this property was sold to Malik through a company. She was unaware of the sale.

Desai: There are three constitutional issues which arise..

Court: Even so, let this be heard by regular bench.

Desai: This is writ of habeas corpus.

Court: Even so, we understand your difficulties.. but then we are not regular bench.

Desai: I am aware of the exigencies, but with the habeas corpus there is question of someone’s personal liberty.

Court: But the regular bench is sitting tomorrow.

Desai: In a writ of habeas corpus, tomorrow is remand date. If the judge continues demand, they will argue that the writ is not maintainable.

Desai: After first remand if some conditions are not fulfilled then Habeas corpus will lie, but then after the second remand, it will regularize because it is second judicial order.

Court: If there are violations of law, then why not come to the provisions of law straightaway. Why read the remand.

Desai: The doctrine of ex-post facto depends on date.
The question is to be prima facie.

Desai: My immediate relief is even if there are violations, am I not entitled to interim relief.

Court: If you are saying the first remand order is illegal, then how can second remand be legal?

Court: We will place this matter tomorrow. You (ED) file your reply.

Desai: Your lordship has difficulty then your lordships may say that tomorrow’s remand is subject to outcome of this petition.

Court: We are keeping this matter tomorrow and we are requesting you to file your reply.

ASG: This is not possible.
The order was available since 4th, they served us last night.

Court: we will observe that subsequent remand granted is without prejudice to rights and contentions of the petitioner.

Order: We are adjourning petition by granting time till March 7, 2022 to ED to file reply. Any subsequent remand if granted, the same shall be without prejudice to rights and contemtions of both parties.

ASG: milords may say ED.

Desai: ED is the State only!

Matter adjourned to March 7, 2022.

Nawab Malik Habeas Corpus plea: Bombay High Court seeks response from ED, adjourns case for March 7

report by @Neha_Jozie

#nawabmalik #BombayHC

Read story: bityl.co/B9CI