Bombay HC rejects bail plea of Iqbal Mirchi aide in money laundering case by ED

A single-judge bench of Justice Bharati H Dangre on November 18 passed the order in the plea by Merchant which stated that he is nearly 72 years old and suffers from various ailments.

Senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari, appearing for Merchant, also submitted Merchant has been in jail for almost three years, he suffers from various ailments on account of his advanced age, and deserves to be released on bail. Chaudhari further claimed that no prima facie case has been made against Merchant based on the complaints and charge sheet. He added the alleged scheduled offences occurred a decade before wherein the investigation had been almost completed and therefore there was no likelihood of tampering with evidence or the case by the applicant.

Chaudhari said Merchant’s role in the case surfaced for the first time in 2005, whereas the complaint alleged that the transaction of purchase of three properties was completed in 1989 and the scheduled offences, which are alleged to have been committed by late Iqbal Mirchi, took place somewhere between 1992 to 1994. Therefore, there is no nexus between the scheduled offences and the proceeds of crime, Chaudhari argued.

However, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh, representing ED, opposed the application and submitted that on September 16, 2020, Merchant’s bail plea was rejected by Justice Dangre herself after considering the merits of the case, after which he had approached the Supreme Court and later withdrew his plea. Singh submitted that the present bail application is filed in form of a review application and, therefore, it cannot be entertained.

Singh also said there was no change in circumstance except that the applicant’s age is on the rise, but that by itself cannot be sufficient ground to release him. He added there is every possibility of the applicant fleeing from the course of justice and, hence, the application deserves to be rejected.

Justice Dangre upheld ED’s claim noting that there was “no change in circumstance,” therefore, the court was “not convinced to take a different view” from the 2020 order. Justice Dangre held, “As far as the status of the special case is concerned, it is at the stage of framing of charge and by requesting the special PMLA Court judge to make every endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, I am not persuaded to entertain the application once again, when on earlier occasion it was rejected by considering the merits in the complaint and once again on perusal of the same material, I am not persuaded to arrive at the different conclusion. Hence, the application is rejected.”