Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) before the Delhi High Court raised a preliminary objection, claiming that there was a suppression of facts regarding a dismissed anticipatory bail application. These submissions were made in a writ petition filed By Amanatullah Khan challenging his arrest by the ED.

In the first hearing, Special Counsels Zoheb Hossain, for ED, had argued that Khan had materially concealed an earlier order of this court, dismissing the anticipatory bail application. This decision was also upheld by the Supreme Court. 

Special Counsel Hussain submitted that claiming the absence of valid reasons for the arrest was already considered by the High Court, which was further affirmed by the Apex Court.

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, for the petitioner, contested ED’s submissions, asserting that Khan’s release was sought on the basis of the arrest being unlawful, a matter that could not have been addressed in the anticipatory bail applications.

In the recent court hearing, Special Counsel Hussain raised a preliminary objection regarding the alleged suppression of facts by Khan. He stated, “We have taken up a preliminary objection to suppression of facts. However, due to the turn of events, this petition is now subject to Amanatullah’s release, following the trial court's decision to decline cognizance on account of sanctions. We are independently in the process of challenging this matter.” Special Counsel Hussain clarified that he was not seeking dismissal of the case as infructuous but aimed to inform the court of the current developments.  

In response, Advocate Rajat Bhardwaj, for Khan, emphasized the constitutional implications of the case. He presented two reasons for pressing this application "first, the issue of sanctions is a curable irregularity, and proceedings can begin at any point in time. Second, the primary question concerns Article 19 and whether it has been violated".

Advocate Bhardwaj highlighted that “This is the first case of its kind in India, where the trial court, applying Supreme Court jurisprudence, refused to take cognizance due to the absence of necessary sanctions. If the ED has violated Khan fundamental rights under Article 19, it should be addressed accordingly.”  

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary with Advocates Rajat Bhardwaj, Md. Irshad, Anita, Kaustubh K., Rishi, Arveen, Muskan, Saurav and Karan
For Respondent: Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain and Special Public Prosecutor Manish Jain with Advocates Vivek Gurnani, Pranjal, S. Vats and Anand Kirti
Case Title: Amanatullah Khan v ED (W.P.(CRL) 2897/2024)