Don't copy-paste arguments from Chidambaram case: SC pulls up ED over petition challenging DKShi's bail

Bengaluru: In a major relief to Congress leader DK Shivakumar, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) petition challenging the Delhi High Court order granting bail to the former in a money-laundering case.

A bench comprising Justices R F Nariman and S Ravindra Bhat rejected the request of the Solicitor General, appearing for the ED, to issue a notice to the other side on the appeal.

It also lashed out at the ED for copy-pasting arguments from Chidambaram’s INX media case without editing.

The high court had on October 23 granted bail to Shivakumar, saying he cannot tamper with evidence or influence witnesses and no material has been shown to indicate that he was a flight risk.

Shivakumar, a seven-time MLA in Karnataka, was booked along with Haumanthaiah, an employee at the Karnataka Bhavan in Delhi, and others for alleged offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The ED had arrested Shivakumar on September 3 in the money laundering case.

The case was based on a charge sheet filed by the Income Tax Department against them last year before a special court in Bengaluru on charges of alleged tax evasion and ‘hawala’ transactions worth crores of rupees.

The I-T department has accused Shivakumar and his alleged associate S K Sharma of indulging in transactions involving huge amounts of unaccounted money on a regular basis through ‘hawala’ channels with the help of three other accused.

During the hearing on Friday, Mehta told the apex court that the appeal should be heard as it raises a legal question as to whether the Indian Penal Code’s section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) could be a “stand alone” offence.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and A M Singhvi, appearing for Shivakumar, opposed the ED’s plea and said it should be dismissed.

Singhvi referred to the high court order and said it has been held that Shivakumar is neither a flight risk nor can he tamper with any evidence.

“I fail to understand that issuance of notice is being opposed on question of law,” Mehta said.

“Do not invite us to say something. It is not the way you will deal with citizens rights,” the bench told Mehta.

Rohatgi referred to section 45 (1) of the PMLA, which was struck down in 2017 by the apex court which had said it was “manifestly arbitrary” and “unconstitutional”.

Section 45(1) of the PMLA, which was struck down, imposed stringent conditions for securing bail of a person accused in offence of money laundering.