Special PMLA Court Grants Bail To Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut in Patra Chawl Scam; ED's plea to stay order rejected

A Special PMLA Court in Mumbai has granted bail to Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut in the Patra Chawl scam. The Special Court has, however, rejected the application of the Enforcement Directorate seeking a stay on the execution of the bail order. 

The ASG, appearing for ED, while seeking stay on the execution of the bail order argued that in Anil Deshmukh's case a similar stay was granted by the high court and informed the court that ED is going to challenge the bail order. 

The counsel for Pravin Raut, aide of Sanjay Raut and co-accused in the case, opposed the application of ED and submitted that this is a case of personal liberty and that the accused are not going to run away. He submitted that no one is taking away the right of ED to challenge the bail order. 

He also argued that in Anil Deshmukh's case bail was granted since the Supreme Court was closed and in the present case the order will be challenged before the High Court which is open today. Further, he stated that there is no provision in CrPC on staying the execution of bail order by the sessions court.

The ASG said, "I have prayed for one week's stay but it is up to the court to decide. Even if the stay is granted for 2 and half days till Friday, it will be fine. Let me go through the order and the procedure takes time to prefer an application before High Court. Where is the restriction of not allowing the stay on applications? It is your order, you can say when it will be operative. I want some chance and breathing time to approach the High court. Is the request unreasonable?" 

Arguments in the Bail petition before the Special PMLA Court:

The Additional Solicitor General while opposing the bail plea had argued before the court that the investigation revealed that Sanjay Raut received proceeds of the crime.

He submitted that Section 3 of the PMLA Act is interpreted widely as decided by the Supreme Court and people even remotely connected with the crime can be prosecuted.

The ASG cited a case and stated that "there was a case where an accused was beneficiary of Rs. 1 and even then his bail was rejected on the grounds that he was aware of the crime".

The ASG further argued that out of 3 cores 27 lakhs rupees, the applicant has tried to explain 1 crore 6 lakhs rupees, but the applicant does not give any explanation for the 2 crores 20 lakh rupees. The ASG submitted before the court that "out of Rs. 1 crore 27 lakh, the applicant has stated that he has taken a loan of Rs. 50 lakh from a friend in 2009-2010. The loan was repaid in December 2020 only after the wife of the applicant, Varsha Raut received the summons in the PMC Scam case."

Further, he argued that "with regard to Rs. 37 lakh, the applicant stated that he had invested Rs. 29 lakh in Prathamesh Company where 70% holding is of Pravin Raut and that within one month the return on investment is Rs. 37 lakh plus the original amount invested Rs. 29 lakh."

The ASG stated that the Supreme Court in various judgments has stated that economic offenses are serious and that PMLA is a special statute not only for taking penal measures but also a preventive measure, therefore, keeping in mind the twin condition under section 45 the bail should be decided.

With respect to the applicants challenging the credibility of the statement of witnesses, the ASG submitted that the credibility of the witnesses cannot be questioned at the stage of bail application and the court cannot conduct a mini-trial.

The Advocate representing Sanjay Raut had argued that the loan of Rs. 55 lakhs was declared by Madhuri Raut during the 2016 Rajya Sabha Elections. He argued that the allegations that money received from Avni Construction, are false and that the investment gains from Prathamesh Company are on record in the statement of Pravin Raut.

He argued that the allegations that Raut paid money in cash for the Alibaug plot, are false and that the statement of the witnesses is contradictory wherein, one statement says that money was received in the cash and during the subsequent recording of the statement, it was contended that they have not received the said cash.

The counsel stated that all the transactions were correctly disclosed and that the investigation authorities have falsely accused them of these transactions, and that no criminal activity or money laundering was committed by them.