The Supreme Court has refused to grant Anticipatory Bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan in a money laundering case related to alleged irregularities in the Waqf Board during his chairmanship.

Khan in his present Special Leave Petition (SLP), has challenged the March 11, 2024, Order of the Delhi High Court, whereby he was denied Anticipatory Bail.

The Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta asked Khan to appear before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on April 18, 2024, at 11 am in the case.

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary appeared for Khan and ASG SV Raju along with Advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared for ED

The Court also took exception to certain observations made by the Delhi High Court with regard to the merit of the case and said it would not have any bearing on the matter.

Pertinently, on March 11, the High Court while stressing that an MLAs status of being an elected representative of the people does not create an elite class entitling different treatment under the law, the Bench had observed that, "the material evidences so gathered during the course of investigation under PMLA revealed that the applicant Amanatullah Khan has acquired huge cash amounts, being the proceeds of crime out of criminal activities relating to his corrupt and illegal activities relating to illegal recruitment of the persons in Delhi Waqf Board, leasing out the properties of Delhi Waqf Board in unfair & illegal manner, misappropriation of Delhi Waqf Board funds including others while being the public servant i.e. Chairman of Delhi Waqf Board and MLA from Okhla Legislative Assembly of Delhi during the period from 2015 onwards. In order to launder the same, he had hatched a criminal conspiracy along with his close associates and others and in pursuant thereupon, he had invested his ill-gotten money i.e. proceeds of crime, in the immovable properties through his associates.. As alleged, he had purchased immovable properties in the name of benamidars... both accused persons, by concealing and suppressing their actual value which is very nominal in comparison to their actual sale value and actively concealed amounts that were paid in cash to the seller, which are the proceeds of crime acquired by the applicant Amanatullah Khan out of his corrupt and illegal activities relating to the offences scheduled under PMLA."

A case had been registered against the Petitioner, an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Delhi, and Mahboob Alam, the former CEO of the Delhi Waqf Board (DWB), along with unknown individuals. The Central Bureau of Investigation initiated the case, citing offenses under Section 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860, and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The chargesheet filed by the CBI alleged the illegal appointment of Mahboob Alam by the petitioner, involving a tailored advertisement, a resolution passed for the appointment before the application deadline, and the exclusion of other candidates from the interview process. The Petitioner, as the Chairman of DWB, was accused of misusing his official position by employing relatives and acquaintances in DWB without official authorization. To legitimize their appointments, an advertisement was published in Urdu newspapers on April 24, 2016.

The Court had also observed that, "the material brought before this Court at this stage is sufficient to attract bar under Section 45 of PMLA, and it prima facie shows the offence of money laundering being committed by the present accused/applicant."

Cause Title: Amanatullah Khan v. Directorate of Enforcement [SLP (Crl) No. 4837/2024]

Justice Sanjiv KhannaJustice Dipankar DattaPMLA

Sukriti Mishra