ED Can Only Give Instructions To Its Public Prosecutor On Facts, Not On What He Should Do Before Court As An Officer Of Court: Apex Court

The Court granted bail to the Appellants arrested in connection with the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case. The Bench noted that the Appellants had been in custody for approximately one year and one month and yet no charges were framed in the complaint filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The complaint includes 29 witnesses and relies on around 50 documents, totalling approximately 4000 pages of evidence, highlighting the complexity and extensive documentation associated with the case.

A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih observed, "A Public Prosecutor has to be fair. If a case is covered by a binding precedent, it is his duty to point out the said aspect to the Court. However, the aforesaid observations will not prevent Public Prosecutors from opposing a bail petition on the ground that acts or omissions on the part of the Enforcement Directorate are not responsible for the delay of trial."

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhri appeared for Zeeshan Haider (Appellant), while Additional Solicitor General SV Raju represented the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

"The trial is not likely to commence as even charges have not been framed. Therefore, in the facts of the case and in view of the undertakings furnished by the appellants, what is held in paragraphs 25 to 28 of the decision of this Court in the case of V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, will have to be followed and the appellants will have to be enlarged on bail,” the Court noted.

The Court also emphasised that “Enforcement Directorate or its Director can give instructions to a Public Prosecutor on facts of the case. However, Enforcement Directorate or its Director cannot give any directions or instructions to the Public Prosecutor about what he ought to do or ought not to do before the Court as an officer of the Court.”

Background:

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) is investigating alleged money laundering activities linked to Amanatullah Khan, a political figure associated with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and former chairperson of the Delhi Waqf Board. The probe centred on property transactions totaling approximately Rs. 36 crores in Delhi, Dehradun, and Telangana, conducted through associates Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir, who are accused of facilitating cash concealment. A white diary seized from co-accused Kausar Imam Siddiqui detailed over Rs.100 crores in cash transactions from 2018 to 2022, including a Rs. 36 crore transaction. The ED’s case is supported by bank statements and statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, establishing a prima facie case of money laundering.

The Delhi High Court had dismissed the bail applications of Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir, emphasising the seriousness of the charges and the need to prevent misuse of bail.

Cause Title: Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate of Enforcement (SLP(Crl) No. 9576/2024)

Appearance:

Appellant- Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhri; Advocates Ankita M Bhardwaj, Kaustubh Khanna, Saurav Kekroda, Arveen Sekhon, Rishi Sehgal, Muskan Khurana, Manish Baidwan, Arun Kumar Nagar and Ankit Sharma; AOR Rajat Bhardwaj and Sudhir Naagar

Respondent- Additional Solicitor General SV Raju; Advocates Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Arkaj Kumar, Vivek Gurnani, Sushil Raaja, Samrat Goswami, Animesh Upadhyay, Aditi Singh, Anand Kirti and Deepika Gahlot; AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma