Naresh Goyal’s arrest for loan fraud ‘legal’, his ‘non-cooperation’ slowed probe’s pace: ED tells HC

A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Gauri V Godse had on September 20 asked ED to file its reply within two weeks. After Goyal’s counsel said the 74-year-old petitioner should be granted relief of interim bail pending hearing of the plea, the bench said he can move a separate bail application in that regard. Taking ED’s affidavit in reply on record, the bench posted further hearing in Goyal’s plea to October 12.

Goyal has sought direction to release him from “abjectly unlawful and arbitrary custody and incarceration” and also sought to quash and set aside the arrest memo and arrest order of September 1 along with remand applications and orders of September 2 and 11 and their effect and implementation. Pending disposal of the plea, Goyal has sought temporary release from custody and stay the effect of arrest and remand orders.

“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,” ED’s affidavit filed through Sudhanshu Srivastava, its Assistant Director at Mumbai Zonal office stated.

It added that non-cooperation by Goyal through his “elusive and misleading” answers ‘slowed the pace of investigation’ which involved a large number of fictitious banking transactions and therefore his custodial interrogation was deemed necessary.

The ED argued that Goyal is “very influential, intelligent and resourceful person” and the crime was committed by him with ‘full pre-meditation’ so that the offence would not be detected, therefore his custody was required to identify proceeds of crime. Moreover, there was every possibility of him tampering evidence, which would adversely affect the probe.

The agency also said that Goyal was ‘mastermind’ in undertaking transactions and incorporating shell companies to channelise proceeds of crime and his arrest memo was duly prepared as per guidelines and information about the arrest was duly intimated to his wife as per law.

It added that habeas corpus plea will not be maintainable since when it was filed, the detention of petitioner was authorised by the competent trial court. The ED further said the remand orders of special court under PMLA were well reasoned.