Bombay HC to hear plea challenging Nawab Malik’s arrest tomorrow

His law firm Rashmikant and Partners filed a habeas corpus petition in the high court seeking to produce Malik before the court and claiming that his arrest was “illegal”, was done due to “political vendetta” and without following due process under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

The NCP leader claimed the ED had taken action against him for being a “vocal critique of misuse of central agencies” since 2020. He added that he was not the first to be targeted by central agencies and that the “trend across the nation where central agencies are being misused by the party in power” is worrying. He sought immediate release with a declaration that his arrest was “illegal”. The minister also sought to quash and set aside the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in the case.

Challenging his remand, Malik said a “lengthy” and “obscure” remand plea was filed by the ED to “obfuscate the real issue” and mislead the special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court judge.

Malik claimed the ED application revealed that it was a “mere sale purchase transaction of the property in question in Kurla for due consideration” and the agency could not make out any case or offence against him. He added that the special court order of February 23 on his remand was passed without jurisdiction.

The NCP spokesperson added that the said order was in breach of the petitioner’s “statutory rights” under section 41A of the CrPC, which mandates the investigating officer to issue a notice of appearance before the arrest, as well as a violation of provisions of the PMLA Act.

The plea claimed that the special judge failed to consider that the offences alleged were from over 20 years ago and the PMLA Act, which came into force in 2013, was applied retrospectively in the case.

On Tuesday, advocates Taraq Sayed and Kushal Mor, representing Malik, mentioned his plea before a bench led by Justice Prasanna B Varale, which asked them to approach an appropriate bench.

Thereafter, Malik’s lawyers mentioned it before an alternate bench led by Justice S S Shinde which ordered: “In light of the statement made by the counsel and in view of extreme urgency, we allow the grant of circulation of matter on March 2 to be listed before the appropriate bench.”