Read Time: 05 minutes
Tanwar was recently granted interim bail for six weeks as he underwent gall bladder surgery. The bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan, noting the objections of ED, observed that “he (Tanwar) has undergone surgery- that is enough. Let him be with his family for a while”.
The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, heard the bail application of Ved Pal Tanwar, who was arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for his involvement in illegal mining activities in the Dadam area of Haryana.
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, representing Tanwar, argued that ‘no other accused is arrested except me (Tanwar) in this matter’.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Pahwa contended that the case was primarily based on Section 7 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), which was not a scheduled offence anymore. He argued that when the grounds of arrest were filed, the ED had erroneously cited Section 7 of the EPA. However, he asserted that Section 7 did not apply in this case.
Senior Advocate Pahwa further pointed out that the initial FIR had been lodged under Section 7 of the EPA by the Director, alleging that unscientific mining practices had resulted in the deaths of four individuals. However, he emphasized that Section 7 had only been temporarily classified as a scheduled offence and was no longer included in that category.
Senior Advocate Pahwa also refuted the FIR’s claim that Tanwar had been a partner in GMM Company, arguing that his client had never held such a position. He reiterated that, at present, no scheduled offence was involved in the case. Given these circumstances, he submitted that Tanwar was entitled to bail.
Senior Advocate Pahwa further asserted that since the case no longer involved a scheduled offence, the ED lacked jurisdiction. He argued that the ED was overstepping its legal mandate by assuming the role of a complainant, which was impermissible under the law.
Highlighting the implications of such an FIR, Senior Advocate Pahwa stated that the ED’s attempt to prosecute an offence that no longer qualified as a scheduled offence was contrary to the policy of the PMLA. He cited the case of Surender Panwar vs. Directorate of Enforcement, in which the Punjab and Haryana High Court had granted bail in an illegal mining case on the grounds that the offence in question was not a scheduled offence.
Additionally, Senior Advocate Pahwa invoked the doctrine of parity, emphasizing that no other accused in the matter had been arrested except for Tanwar. He referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Arvind Kejriwal case, which had clarified that parity should be assessed not only in relation to arrested accused persons but also to those who had not been arrested.
Case Title: Vedpal Singh Tanwar v ED (Bail Appln.4102/2024)
Please Login or Register
