Court Grants Bail, Criticizes Arrest Disparities & Lack of Evidence Under PML Act

The court granted bail to the accused, finding their arrests illegal under the PML Act. It highlighted disparities in arrests, lack of evidence for Proceeds of Crime, and deficiencies in the quality and reliability of evidence. The court criticized the selective arrest strategy and alleged political vendetta by the ED. Emphasizing the civil nature of the dispute, the court stressed the need for quality evidence and expedited trials. The accused were released on bail as they were not likely to commit offenses while on bail, and the stringent twin conditions were not met.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the arrests of the accused under Section 19 of the PML Act.
2. Examination of the existence of Proceeds of Crime (POC) and criminal activity relating to the Scheduled Offence.
3. Application of stringent twin conditions under Section 45(1)(i)(ii) of the PML Act.
4. Disparity and selective arrest strategy by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
5. Quality and reliability of the evidence and statements under Section 50(2) and (3) of the PML Act.
6. Allegations of political vendetta and abuse of power by the ED.
7. Examination of the civil nature of the dispute and its qualification as a Predicate Offence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Arrests:
The court found that the arrests of Pravin Raut (A3) and Sanjay Raut (A5) under Section 19 of the PML Act were illegal, emphasizing that the power to arrest should be used sparingly and as a last resort. The court noted that the arrests were made without proper qualifications and primarily for a civil dispute, which is not a Predicate Offence under the PML Act. The court highlighted that the ED did not arrest the main accused persons Rakesh Wadhawan (A1) and Sarang Wadhawan (A2), who admitted their misdeeds, indicating a selective approach in the arrests.

2. Examination of Proceeds of Crime (POC):
The court held that there was no clear evidence to establish that the amounts received by Pravin Raut (A3) and Sanjay Raut (A5) were Proceeds of Crime generated from criminal activities relating to the Scheduled Offence. The court noted that the ED's contention that Pravin Raut received Rs.95 Crore from HDIL out of an outstanding illegal loan from PMC Bank contradicted their claim that the same amount was generated from the sale of FSI in the Patra Chawl Project. This self-contradictory stance by the ED failed to establish the existence of POC.

3. Application of Twin Conditions:
The court emphasized that the stringent twin conditions under Section 45(1)(i)(ii) of the PML Act require a thorough examination of the quality of materials and evidence. The court found that the materials and statements provided by the ED lacked quality and reliability, and thus, the twin conditions were not satisfied. The court concluded that both accused were not likely to commit any offence while on bail and were entitled to be released on bail.

4. Disparity and Selective Arrest Strategy:
The court criticized the ED for its selective approach in arresting Pravin Raut (A3) and Sanjay Raut (A5) while leaving the main accused persons Rakesh Wadhawan (A1) and Sarang Wadhawan (A2) scot-free. The court highlighted that this disparity indicated a pick-and-choose strategy by the ED, which could not be justified at law. The court stressed the importance of maintaining parity and not putting a premium on such selective strategies.

5. Quality and Reliability of Evidence:
The court scrutinized the statements recorded under Section 50(2) and (3) of the PML Act and found them lacking in quality and reliability. The court noted contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses, including those of Ms. Swapna Patkar and Mr. Chandan Kelekar. The court emphasized that the quality of material is crucial in deciding bail applications under the PML Act and that the statements provided by the ED did not meet the required standard.

6. Allegations of Political Vendetta:
The court acknowledged the allegations of political vendetta and abuse of power by the ED, noting that Sanjay Raut (A5) is a Member of Parliament and a senior leader of the Shivsena Party. The court found that the arrests and the manner in which they were conducted indicated a possible motive of political vendetta, further questioning the legitimacy of the ED's actions.

7. Civil Nature of the Dispute:
The court concluded that the dispute was purely civil in nature and did not qualify as a Predicate Offence under the PML Act. The court highlighted that the long-standing civil litigation and the involvement of MHADA and other parties indicated that the matter was not criminal but civil. The court held that the civil dispute could not be labeled as money laundering or an economic offence to justify the arrests and detention of the accused.

Conclusion:
The court granted bail to Pravin Raut (A3) and Sanjay Raut (A5), finding that their arrests were illegal and that the stringent twin conditions under Section 45(1)(i)(ii) of the PML Act were not satisfied. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining parity, the quality of evidence, and the civil nature of the dispute in its decision. The court also highlighted the need for the ED to conduct trials expeditiously and not just focus on arrests.

---