New Delhi, Dec 15 A Delhi court on Friday reserved, for December 18, its order on whether to grant interim bail to Hyderabad-based liquor businessman Arun Ramchandra Pillai, who is an accused in the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy case.
Special Judge M.K. Nagpal also extended the custody parole granted to Pillai till December 18.
Earlier, the court has asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to file the medical verification report on interim bail plea of Pillai.
On Pillai's interim bail plea seeking an eight-week release due to his wife's medical condition, the court had, on December 1, given time to the financial probe agency to file a reply.
Before Special Judge Nagpal of the Rouse Avenue Court, Pillai's counsel Nitesh Rana had submitted that his client's wife is extremely sick, and that she has no one to look after as she lives alone.
Pillai was arrested on March 6 and is currently in judicial custody. Earlier, the ED had filed a reply before the Delhi High Court on Pillai's bail plea. It also filed a response on another petition terming his arrest as illegal, and violative of Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Citing the Supreme Court mandate of providing grounds of arrest as mandatory and of utmost importance, in the petition, Pillai had stated that no grounds for arrest, either oral or written, were ever provided to him, as is required under Section 19(1) of PMLA.
His plea further stated that none of the impugned remand orders record any satisfaction of whether the ED had materials on record to form "reasons to believe" that Pillai is guilty of an offence under the PMLA.
"It is pertinent to mention that the purported facts that have been asserted by the respondent agency (ED) in the remand application were asserted even in the first prosecution complaint filed," the plea read.
"The petitioner/applicant has appeared before the ED at least on nine occasions after the filing of first prosecution complaint and at least on three occasions after filing of the second prosecution complaint on which occasions the petitioner/applicant was never arrested by the respondent agency," it stated.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor