A Delhi court on Thursday granted protection from arrest to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan until February 24 in connection with an alleged attack on a police team in Jamia Nagar on February 10. Special Judge Jitendra Singh directed Khan to cooperate with the investigation whenever summoned by the police.
The court also instructed the Delhi Police to present all relevant documents and CCTV footage related to the incident on the next hearing date. The police had registered an FIR against Khan, accusing him of leading a mob that allegedly attacked a police team and facilitated the escape of a proclaimed offender involved in an attempted murder case. The incident reportedly occurred when a Crime Branch team attempted to arrest one Shabaz Khan in an unrelated matter.
Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court issued a notice on Thursday regarding a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against a trial court order that had released Amanatullah Khan in a money laundering case. The case is linked to alleged irregularities in the recruitment process of the Delhi Waqf Board during his tenure as chairman.
Justice Vikas Mahajan sought responses from Khan and his wife, who had not been summoned by the trial court due to a lack of material evidence connecting her to the alleged proceeds of crime. The High Court also directed the special judge to adjourn proceedings against other accused persons in the money laundering case until after March 21, when the ED’s plea is scheduled for the next hearing.
During the hearing, ED’s Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain argued that despite the trial court’s refusal to take cognizance against Khan and his wife, the case was still proceeding against other accused individuals. He requested that the trial proceedings be deferred until after the High Court hearing, which the court agreed to.
The ED has challenged the trial court’s decision on multiple grounds, including its refusal to take cognizance against Khan due to the lack of requisite sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The agency contends that Khan’s alleged actions, including illegally leasing out Waqf properties and making unlawful appointments in exchange for bribes, were not part of his official duties, making the requirement for sanction irrelevant.
Furthermore, the ED argued that the trial court did not grant the agency an opportunity to present its case on the issue of sanction and failed to consider that a sanction was not entirely absent. The ED asserted that had it been allowed to present its arguments, it could have provided the necessary sanction before the trial court.
In November last year, the trial court refused to take cognizance of the ED’s supplementary chargesheet against Khan under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) due to the lack of sanction. The court had noted that no approval from a competent authority was placed on record against him.
The ED has accused Khan of illegally recruiting individuals in violation of norms and government guidelines while serving as the chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board. The agency alleges that he received large sums of money through these unlawful recruitments and invested the proceeds in immovable assets under the names of his associates.
Khan was arrested by the ED on September 2 following searches at his residence. His request for anticipatory bail was denied by a coordinate bench on March 11. Subsequently, the Supreme Court refused to entertain his petition challenging the decision on April 23.
The case is now set for further hearings in both the Delhi High Court and the lower courts in the coming months.
