Jet Airways loan fraud: Bombay HC dismisses Naresh Goyal’s plea challenging arrest by ED

The bench said that it is always open for petitioner to avail of other statutory remedies, as permissible in law to him.

Goyal, a septuagenarian, claimed that his September 1 arrest was illegal and sought that the orders of a special court that initially remanded him in ED custody and thereafter in judicial custody be set aside.

The bench passed a verdict in Goyal’s habeas corpus plea, which claimed that the arrest violated his fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Goyal had sought a direction to release him from “abjectly unlawful and arbitrary custody and incarceration” and also sought the quashing and setting aside of the arrest memo and arrest order along with remand applications and orders of September 2 and 11. Pending the disposal of the plea, he had sought temporary release from custody and a stay on the effect of the arrest and the remand orders.

For the ED, advocate Hiten Venegaonkar claimed that all legal procedures were complied with while arresting Goyal. The agency said his arrest was necessary as Goyal was “highly uncooperative, recalcitrant, evasive and suspicious in his statements and conduct” and that his non-cooperation had slowed the pace of investigation.

“Petitioner’s deliberate attempt for non-cooperation and non-submission of documents/information proved that the loan amounts were embezzled and siphoned off in a piecemeal manner with mala fide intention to defraud the banks,” the ED’s affidavit filed through Sudhanshu Srivastava, its assistant director at the Mumbai zonal office, stated.

The agency, which had filed the Enforcement Case Information Report on the basis of a CBI FIR, added that “non-cooperation” by Goyal through his “elusive and misleading” answers “slowed the pace of investigation” into a large number of fictitious banking transactions. Therefore his custodial interrogation was deemed necessary, it argued.

The ED also argued that Goyal was a “very influential, intelligent and resourceful person” and that his custody was required to identify the proceeds of crime because it was committed by him with “full pre-meditation” in order that the offence would not be detected. Moreover, there was every possibility of him tampering evidence, which would adversely affect the investigation, the agency further said.

Even as the ED on November 1 provisionally attached properties worth Rs 538.05 crore, the agency in its chargesheet submitted before the special court had said that its investigation revealed public funds worth Rs 5,716.34 crore as the total proceeds of crime.

The bench observed that the submissions about petitioner’s arrest being illegal, grounds of arrest not furnished to him and detention beyond 24 hours stipulated period, were never raised by him at the time of first and second remand. The bench noted Goyal was served a copy of grounds of arrest which he had acknowledged.

The HC clarified that the order was restricted to challenge related to habeas corpus plea and all other contentions of petitioner are kept open.