Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

In the ongoing Delhi Waqf Board case, Jawed Imam Siddiqui before the Delhi High Court asserted his lack of direct involvement in the matter. Siddiqui argued that he was summoned by the Anti-Corruption Branch solely because his name appeared in a diary discovered during a search and seizure operation. He maintained that this incidental mention should not be construed as evidence of his participation in the alleged offenses.

The court inquired whether this was Siddiqui’s first bail application, and the advocate clarified that a previous application had already been dismissed by the trial court.

It was asserted that the ED's case was based on the findings of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which highlighted ten irregularities during Khan's tenure as chairman of the Waqf Board. These included the illegal appointment of excess staff, misappropriation of funds, and improper leasing of Waqf properties without proper bidding processes.

Siddiqui, represented by Advocate Arjun Kakkar, maintained that the charges against his client were merely administrative irregularities, as previously observed by the CBI. However, the ED contended that Khan received substantial financial benefits from his alleged illegal activities, including staff appointments and mismanagement of properties. The court raised pertinent questions regarding whether the transactions in question involved proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

During the hearing, Advocate Kakkar disputed the accusations, asserting that the evidence presented lacked substance. He argued that if Amanatullah Khan had not generated proceeds of crime, Siddiqui could not have been implicated, as he had no knowledge of the alleged unlawful nature of the funds. Furthermore, Siddiqui's purchase of a property in New Friends Colony for ₹14.5 crores was scrutinized, though Siddiqui argued that this transaction was unrelated to the Waqf Board activities.

Additional contentions by the ED involved discrepancies between the amount Siddiqui received (₹13 crores) and the figure of ₹36 crores allegedly found on the phone of another accused, Zeeshan Haider. Advocate Kakkar challenged the ED's estimates, citing a lack of concrete evidence, either oral or documentary, and denied any direct connection between Siddiqui and Khan. Siddiqui emphasized that the only link was through Siddiqui's cousin, Qausar Imam Siddiqui, who acted as the intermediary in the property sale.

Advocate Kakkar pointed out that his client was identified as Accused No. 3, while Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were involved in purchasing the property. Accused No. 4, Qausar Imam Siddiqui, played the role of the dealer. Advocate Kakkar also mentioned that Siddiqui's name surfaced in a diary recovered during the investigation, raising questions about his involvement.

Advocate Kakkar further highlighted that Siddiqui had cooperated with the authorities, returning to India promptly after receiving a phone call from the Anti-Corruption Branch. Despite his compliance, a lookout circular was issued against him. The trial court had earlier recorded that there was no evidence of financial gain by Amanatullah Khan, and no proof of bribes or commissions had been established. Advocate Kakkar also clarified that every transaction in Siddiqui’s accounts had been thoroughly explained.

Concluding the arguments, Advocate Kakkar referred to the market value of the plot, which the ED claimed was ₹36 crores based on diary entries, while Siddiqui asserted it was ₹13.5 crores, with ₹9 crores paid by cheque and ₹4.5 crores in cash.

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. 

Case Title: Jawed Imam Siddiqui v ED (Bail Appln 1864 of 2024)