Delhi High Court seeks ED response to plea by AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan against arrest, remand

The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on a petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan challenging his arrest and remand in a money laundering case registered against him in connection with the alleged irregularities in Delhi Waqf Board recruitments [Amanatullah Khan vs. Directorate of Enforcement].

Justice Neena Krishna Bansal sought ED's response to the plea and posted the case for further hearing on October 18.

The money laundering case against Khan relates to the alleged irregularities in the Delhi Waqf Board recruitment and purchase of properties while he was the chairman of the Board. It is alleged that Khan, as the chairman of the Waqf Board, had recruited people in violation of the law.

The Anti-Corruption Bureau first booked him in the case after which the ED registered the money laundering case against him.

Khan was arrested by ED on September 2 after his plea for anticipatory bail was rejected first by the Delhi High Court and then by the Supreme Court.

He then moved the High Court challenging the legality and validity of his arrest and remand.

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari appeared for Khan and told the Court that the arrest itself was illegal and hence, the remand order passed by the Magistrate should be quashed since it was passed mechanically and in a routine manner.

Chaudhari also relied on the case of Arvind Kejriwal who was released on interim bail by the Supreme Court.

Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, appearing for ED, said that the plea is not maintainable and also alleged that Khan has suppressed material facts that he had earlier placed before the Court in his anticipatory bail petition. 

He submitted that Khan’s earlier plea for anticipatory bail on the same material was already considered and rejected by Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. 

“When on the basis of the same material, this Hon’ble court had examined whether you are entitled to anticipatory bail and twin conditions of Section 45 PMLA, why do you choose to not disclose it in the writ petition,” he asked.

Hossain further submitted that when Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s petition against arrest was heard by the Supreme Court, it was dismissed only on the ground of concealment and suppression of material facts.