Read Time: 05 minutes

“Prima facie there was evidence to indicate that Anil Deshmukh had exercised undue influence in transfer and postings of police officials,” observed a special court that denied bail recently to the NCP leader and former state home minister in a money laundering case.

The Special Judge under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) RN Rokade stated that, “from statements of certain witnesses, one thing is clear, that an unofficial list of police officers relating to transfer and postings used to be prepared at the instance of Deshmukh and forwarded to the Police Establishment Board (PEB).”

“Prima facie there is material to indicate that recommendations received from Deshmukh used to be included in the final order prepared by the PEB,” court further noticed.

The present case had arisen from corruption allegations against Deshmukh by former city police chief Param Bir Singh. Apart from the allegations of illegal collections from city’s bars and restaurants, Singh had also alleged interference in police transfers and postings. The matter was probed by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had launched a probe based on the CBI’s case. Deshmukh was arrested by the ED in Nov last year.

It is to be noted, that the PEB is constituted to recommend the names of police officials and their transfers and postings as per directions of the apex court in a case.

“There is no reasonable explanation as to why there was deviation from the guidelines issued by the SC while effecting transfers and postings during the tenure of the applicant as Home Minister of Maharashtra,” it stated.

Regarding the illegal collections from bars and restaurants that were allegedly laundered, the court stated that, apart from statements of witnesses, money trail and charts show that he had laundered Rs. 13.25 crores since 2011 and Rs. 2.83 crores was laundered during his tenure as the home minister. Prima facie there is evidence to show that the applicant is actively involved in generation and money laundering activities.”

The court noted that there was no reasonable explanation from Deshmukh on the donations received from shell companies into his family-run NGO and that his statements are ‘evasive’ on the matter.

Further, if the statements of some witnesses are considered in juxtaposition with the money trail, prima facie it can be safely inferred that Deshmukh is actively involved in money laundering.