ED files reply before Bombay HC, denies Nawab Malik’s arrest is illegal – Times of India

MUMBAI: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) in its reply to a habeas corpus and quashing petition filed by Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik against his “illegal arrest” in an alleged money laundering case said he “voluntarily visited the office’’ accompanied by his son in his car driven by a driver.
The ED denied it was an illegal arrest.
The ED said Malik’s claim of a ‘forcible pickup’ was “belied’’ by a tweet from Malik’s office.
The ED sought dismissal of Malik’s petition saying not only is it not maintainable, but it is also “filed to derail the investigation.” The ED said Malik’s allegation of the case being “politically motivated’’ is “specious’’ and “false’’. “The entire ramification of the case are yet to be determined in the course of investigation’’ said the ED reply also adding , “Investigation and the statements taken in the course of same has clearly revealed the involvement of the petitioner.’’
The Bombay high court had last week sought a reply from ED while posting the petition for hearing on March 7. Due to paucity of time, a bench of Justices P B Varale and S M Modak posted it to Tuesday and Malik’s senior counsel Amit Desai to stress the urgency said it is a question of his fundamental right to liberty which cannot be trampled up on lightly.
The ED reply said the investigation was its prerogative and who to arrest and when would be in its domain. It also said the “investigation is at a preliminary stage and petitioner is an influential person’’ and has “so far revealed that there exists reasonable grounds to believe that he has committed acts of money laundering’’ in connection with a plot at Goawalla compound in Kurla.
The interim relief of release is akin to final relief and ought not to be given, said the ED.
Malik’s petition is that purchase of land was bona fide based on a power of attorney the offence under PMLA cannot be invoked retrospectively as the Act of 2005 was not even in existence when the alleged transaction occurred. The ED citing the Act contends it was a ‘continuing offence’ hence the Act is applicable.