‘Pick-and-choose’ attitude: Court tears down ED’s case as it grants bail to Sanjay Raut

A special court on Wednesday granted bail to Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut over three months after his arrest on Aug 1 in a money laundering case concerning Patra Chawl. It made scathing observations in its order on the “pick-and-choose” attitude of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and said it made an “illegal” arrest of Raut while letting the main accused go scot-free without arrest. Immediately after the order, the ED requested the court through a plea to defer the order from taking effect.

Special Judge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) MG Deshpande later in the day rejected the plea. The defence had objected to the move and pointed out that the sessions court has no power for such a stay and had also argued that the matter is of one’s personal liberty. Raut’s co-accused and businessman Pravin Raut who the agency had called his ‘front-man’ in the offence, also got bail along with Sanjay Raut.

Both were granted bail on the condition of furnishing a provisional cash amount of Rs. 2 lakhs. In time, they would have to furnish sureties.

Late in the evening, Sanjay Raut got released from Arthur Road jail where he was lodged while in judicial custody. In its order, Judge Deshpande remarked on the “unusual midnight arrest” of Sanjay Raut and said that during his first ED custody, he was kept in a “windowless room” where only four walls were around him. The court noted that Raut had complained that he had undergone angioplasty and that it was only after the court’s intervention that he could get a room with some ventilation while in the agency’s custody.

“All this prima-facie shows that his arrest is nothing but a witch-hunt and an annihilation of his valuable rights,” it stated. It said his presence could be secured by way of a summons and not in the way in which he was arrested in the late night. It also observed that it is “astonishing” that Rakesh Wadhawan and Sarang Wadhawan of Housing Development and Infrastructure Limited (HDIL) who not only generated huge Rs.

1039. 79 Crore but also allegedly placed, layered and integrated the same, were never arrested by the ED. The ED’s charge sheet contained the statement of a witness who had mentioned a meeting between the then union agriculture minister (Sharad Pawar) and then chief minister (Vilasrao Deshmukh) in which Sanjay Raut was present.

The meeting was in connection with allotting the redevelopment work of Patra Chawl to the Wadhawans’ company. The court called the witness’s words “bald and bare” and questioned how it formed the basis of the ED’s case. It said that skipping all arrests and arresting Raut, was nothing but conveying a message to the then Union Agriculture Minister and creating fear psyche in their mind that they are the next in this queue.

The court said that prima facie there is absolutely nothing to show that whatever received by Sanjay Raut is proceeds of crime under the PMLA. It said Raut may have dealt with unaccounted money in some land dealings but they cannot be thrown in the stock of proceeds of crime. The ED, it said, has failed to point out any proceeds of crime or any criminal activity and said whatever misdeeds occurred in respect of Patra Chawl Project were solely due to Rakesh, Sarang and their company HDIL.

The court also noted the quality of witness statements produced by the ED and said that it cannot overlook that witnesses have been stating facts not within their special knowledge. In this context, it made reference to ED’s reliance on the statements of Swapna Patker, who it claims to be its key witness. It said she too is a recipient of proceeds of crime, but the ED has availed pick and choose strategy with her for reasons best known to it.

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 Wadhawan and Sarang Wadhawan, promoters of Housing Development and Infrastructure Limited), MHADA, government officials/staff responsible for misdeeds of main accused…The extreme and exceptional power of effecting arrest which ought to have been used very very sparingly has been used by the ED Investigating Officers Court is the protector of rights of accused and innocent persons who are illegally arrested. If the Court ignores this aspect, where the people will go for justice? Simply labelling pure civil disputes with “money­laundering” or “an Economic Offence” itself cannot automatically acquire such status and ultimately drag an innocent person in a miserable situation Their own case indicates that Pravin Raut (A3) generated and laundered Rs.

112 Crore and Sanjay Raut(A5) received Rs. 1,06,44,375 (Main PC) and Rs. 3,27,85,475 (as per Supplementary Complaint) therefrom.

No person like Sanjay Raut (A5) would allow his front­man to earn Rs. 112 Crore and pay him a very meagre therefrom Rs. 1,06,44,375/Rs.

3,27,85,475, and purchases properties therefrom. The extra­ordinary pace with which ED arrests accused becomes not even a snail speed in conducting trials. .