Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court granted bail to Jawed Imam Siddiqui on November 13, noting that "the sacrosanct right to liberty and fair trial is to be protected even in cases of stringent provisions present in special legislations.” 

According to the FIR, Amanatullah Khan, while serving as chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board (DWB) from March 2016 to October 2016, misused his position by appointing relatives and associates to various posts in the DWB, allowing them to receive financial benefits. DWB properties were further alleged to be leased without competitive bidding and rented out at reserve prices.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) claimed that the primary accused accumulated substantial cash proceeds from illegal recruitment activities within the DWB and laundered these funds by investing in immovable properties through associates, including Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir. The actual values of these properties were concealed, and sale deeds reported falsely reduced amounts. It was alleged that the concealed cash payments to Siddiqui, who sold one of the properties, constituted proceeds of crime linked to the main accused's involvement in the scheduled offence.

Advocate Manu Sharma, representing Siddiqui, argued that Siddiqui was innocent and wrongfully implicated without evidence. He stated that while the CBI’s investigation of the predicate offence focused solely on DWB appointments, the respondent agency unjustifiably broadened its scope to include the leasing of waqf properties and mismanagement of DWB funds, which the CBI had categorized as administrative irregularities. Advocate Sharma emphasized that the CBI did not claim Amanatullah Khan personally benefited financially from the scheduled offence, nor was any such offence established against Siddiqui. 

Regarding the property sale, Advocate Sharma highlighted that Siddiqui, an Indian passport holder residing in Dubai with his family since 2007, lawfully invested in properties in India. On April 12, 2019, he purchased the property in question, valued at approximately 10.76 crore rupees, from Syed Ahmed Raza Zaidi and others. This purchase was funded through the sale of two other properties for 2.29 crore and 3.70 crore rupees, as evidenced by sale deeds dated December 9, 2017, and February 20, 2018. 

Special Counsel Manish Jain, representing the ED, opposed Siddiqui’s bail, asserting that Siddiqui knowingly received crime proceeds from the main accused and laundered these funds by investing in property with co-accused Zeeshan Haider, Daud Nasir, and Kauser Imam Siddique. Between 2017 and 2022, approximately 11 crore rupees were deposited in the accounts of Siddiqui and his wife, allegedly derived from property sales.

An agreement recovered from Zeeshan’s phone indicated a 36 crore rupees consideration, witnessed by Kauser and Waqar, the latter untraceable. Kauser, under Section 50 of the PMLA, denied knowledge of the 13.4 crore rupees agreement but confirmed the 36 crore rupees agreement's authenticity, stating that Siddiqui sold the property to Zeeshan and Daud under instructions from the main accused. He admitted to the diary’s content.

The court emphasizing the constitutional right to a speedy trial, noted that bail could still be granted under section 45 PMLA if a trial was unlikely to conclude in a reasonable time. The court further noted that an investigation was initiated in 2022, with five accused persons named and 28 witnesses cited. There are 4000 pages of documents to be analyzed. Given the multiple accused, large volume of evidence, and numerous witnesses, the trial is not expected to conclude in the near future. 

The court also remarked that the delay is not attributable to the accused. It was noted that using Section 45 of the PMLA as a tool for prolonged incarceration is not permissible, as it infringes on the accused's liberty.

The court also emphasized that Constitutional Courts can grant bail if there is a violation of Part III of the Constitution, and Section 45 does not prevent this. The right to liberty and a fair trial must be upheld, even under stringent provisions. The applicant has been in custody since 11.11.2023, and the trial has been delayed due to issues related to the supply of documents under Section 207 CrPC. 

Considering the facts, including that the main accused is out on bail, the court directed the release of Siddiqui on regular bail. 

In August 2024, Amanatullah Khan filed a plea seeking to overturn the order of the trial court, wherein the trial court upheld the decision to issue summons to Khan based on the ED's complaint alleging non-compliance. The Delhi High Court declined the plea. 

For Petitioner: Advocates Manu Sharma, Arjun Kakkar, Abhyuday Sharma, Akansha Kaul, Harsh Sethi, Raghav Luthra and Anant Nigam
For Respondent: Special Counsel Manish Jain with Advocates Sougata Ganguly, Gulnaz Khan, Snehal Sharda and Deepanshu Kumar
Case Title: Jawed Imam Siddiqui v ED (2024:DHC:8786)