Bombay HC refuses interim relief to Jitendra Navlani in probe into alleged link with ‘extortion’ by ED officials

Navlani apprehended that the PE would culminate in FIR against him and pending hearing of his plea, sought to stay the SIT proceedings calling them “arbitrary, illegal.”

The court issued notice to the complainant, Mumbai police and other respondents, including various builders, to respond to Navlani’s plea besides seeking progress report of the PE.

The Mumbai Police SIT, on April 8, initiated PE into the allegations of extortion made against some ED officials and Navlani. The enquiry is based on an eight-page letter written by Shiv Sena’s Arvind Bhosle addressed to Mumbai Police commissioner and titled ‘extortion/cheating/criminal conspiracy by Jitendra Navlani and others’. In the letter, he mentioned seven companies which he alleged were held/closely controlled by Navlani who “is one of the conduits of Enforcement Directorate, Western Region”.

Bhosale’s letter said that the ED would summon persons under the pretext of an investigation under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) based on information from Navlani.

A division bench of Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Shriram M Modak was informed by Senior advocate Aabad Ponda representing Navlani that the HC on April 12 had quashed FIR registered against him in 2019 filed for allegedly obstructing police inspector Anup Dange from performing his duty. Navlani had reportedly cited his connections with Param Bir Singh, the then director general of the ACB, to prevent Dange from taking action after the businessman’s bar in south Mumbai was found to be operating beyond permissible hours.

Ponda submitted that “certain persons having different political ideologies, for reasons best known to them” are initiating proceedings against the petitioner, who “has nothing to do with any political ideology”. Ponda said that PE is sought to be initiated against the petitioner as per Supreme court directions, which prescribed a limit for conducting PE within 15 days in normal cases and in six weeks in exceptional cases.

The PE that began on March 8 has not been completed till date and progress of enquiry is unknown, the petitioner said. Ponda added that Navlani’s transactions were legitimate and that he had paid taxes on them.

He added that “it is a complete misuse of legal provision and witch hunt by the investigating agency against Navlani who needs to be protected from coercive action.”

However, the bench said that it was not inclined to grant interim relief without hearing respondents, adding that Navlani can exercise remedies provided in law in case the FIR is filed against him.

Navlani added that the PE is a result of “politically connected matter” between the ruling party and former Mumbai CP Singh, who “exposed shallow and illegal dealings of persons in power, as a result of which there has been shaking up in the entire state.”

“Considering the fact that PE was initiated against petitioner, it is expected that respondent state make a positive statement so far as outcome of enquiry if it reached to its logical end. If it reaches to its logical end, the Public Prosecutor shall place on record a copy of the outcome of the enquiry,” the court said and posted further hearing to June 20.