Delhi PFI chief, two others bail plea rejected in alleged money laundering case
The ED also claimed to have stumbled upon records of foreign transfers of funds through an illegal clandestine channel under a conspiracy hatched by the PFI office-bearers over several years.
Published: 11th January 2023 12:40 PM | Last Updated: 11th January 2023 12:40 PM | A+A A-
NEW DELHI: The bail application of the Delhi PFI chief Pervez Ahmed and two others was turned down by a Special Court at Patiala House, New Delhi on Tuesday. The three have been charged for allegedly laundering money from various locations including overseas destinations and using them for illegal activities during the 2020 Delhi riots.
Ahmed, Mohammad Illias, PFI's Delhi unit general secretary and Abdul Muqeet office secretary, had moved the application before special Judge Shailendra Malik, stating the ED has been adopting delaying tactics and has not filed the prosecution complaint (chargesheet) within the stipulated time frame.
Opposing the bail special public prosecutor NK Matta submitted before the court that the chargesheet was filed on time and in accordance with the law hence the bail request was dismissed.
Ahmed and others were arrested on September 22 2022 and are currently in judicial custody. The ED had filed the chargesheet against them on November 19 2022 which is well within the time frame of 60 days, Matta said.
However, the ED counsel Mohammad Faizan, had moved an application seeking additional time to file certain additional documents, including the names of the witnesses. The reason cited was the agency needed time to file the document with pseudo names of the accused in order to protect their identity and interest as the matter was sensitive.
Rejecting the bail, Special Judge Malik observed, “Having considered the submissions at the bar and taking note of the fact that complaint, in this case, was filed in the court on November 19 2022 which was within the period of 60 days since the arrest of the accused persons by the ED. In such a situation no doubt due to certain lapses or misunderstanding, since ED had mentioned names of certain witnesses whom they had otherwise kept under the category of protected witnesses.”.
He further observed, “In such a situation, merely because the copy of the prosecution complaint (chargesheet) and documents could not be supplied to the accused does not raise any grounds for their release on bail.”
In the nearly-125 page chargesheet ED counsel Faizan had alleged that the accused persons were instrumental in collecting funds by way of donations, hawala transactions and banking channels, which were used for unlawful activities and commission of scheduled offences.
The ED also claimed to have stumbled upon records of foreign transfers of funds through an illegal clandestine channel under a conspiracy hatched by the PFI office-bearers over several years. The agency during searches conducted on the persons recovered evidence of bogus cash receipts, donations and bank transfers. The ED claimed that the accused had denied any association with PFI but later confessed to being involved in fundraising for the organisation.