[ad_1]
Assailing the denial of bail by the special CBI court as “perverse” Deshmukh’s plea before the HC says, “while it may not be contended that the order granting bail in PMLA case would ipso facto bind the trial court to grant bail in the predicate offence, none the less, the findings recorded in the order passed by this court granting bail could not have been brushed aside lightly.”
It also says, “credibility of the investigations being carried out, leave much to desire. A person accused of several heinous offences and having most adverse antecedents has been got declared as an approver by the CBI. Such an approach as adopted by the CBI is not only an anathema to law but also casts a pale of gloom over the conduct of investigations by the most premier investigating agency which has chosen to reward the principal perpetrator of the offences with the gift of pardon. This aspect alone would expose the prosecution against the applicant to be actuated with malice in law.”
Deshmukh’s plea says his arrest by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was improper and that even if Bombay high court order of bail to him in the money laundering case does not necessarily mean that he automatically bind the trial court in his bail plea in the predicate offence —CBI case—, the two cases have one “umbilical cord” connection and hence the HC reasons for bail ought to have had some bearing on his plea.
The HC had said dismissed police office Sachin Waze’s statement as a co-accused in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) would be “unsafe” to be relied on and his section 164 statement —on oath—before the Magistrate had certain omissions rendering it inconsistent with his statement to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) where he said Deshmukh had called him and collection of money from 1750 bars in Mumbai was at his behest.
The special CBI court last week said Waze was an accused turned approver—witness for the state— in the CBI case and hence his statement of money being collected for the Minister assumed importance and significance at this stage.
Deshmukh’s appeal against the trial court order filed through advocate Aniket Nikam eventually assailed the reliance placed trial court on Waze’s section 164 statement to deny him bail.
Advocate Inderpal Singh mentioned Deshmukh’s plea on Wednesday before the HC vacation bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh. She said CBI to file its reply by November 9 and matter to be heard on November 11 before the regular bench.
Deshmukh has also sought interim bail during pendency till the HC passes final orders. Orders for interim relief will be sought on November 11.
His petition before the HC says as a ground for bail that the “reliance has been placed by the Trial Court on the statement of Sachin Waze purportedly recorded in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C. and having been accorded the status of an approver, has occasioned the complete failure of justice.” It says not only is the trial court order “absolute breach of proprietary as well as protocol inasmuch as it takes a view on facts contrary to the view expressed by (the HC) albeit in a PMLA case” but stressed that trial court view is “ untenable in law” on the acceptability of approver’s statement as enunciated by the Supreme Court.
It says the HC had considered the “entire material including the statements recorded in the present CBI under Section 161 and 164 CrPC while granting bail in PMLA case and had “commented on the conduct of Sachin Waze as well as his antecedents”. Deshmukh’s plea is that while PMLA act sets a higher bar on bail, no such bar exists in the CBI case and his case for bail is on “far better footing” and yet was rejected by the trial court.
“It cannot be countenanced that once bail is granted in the PMLA case (far graver and with additional restrictions), he could still be kept incarcerated in the present (CBI) case is his other ground before the HC.
His continued incarceration despite the grant of bail by HC in the PMLA case having not been dislodged by the SC “would be a travesty of justice and even a single day’s delay would amount to overreaching of the orders passed by” the HC and the SC adds his bail plea.
[ad_2]
Source link