A special court in Mumbai on Friday granted Surendra Gadling — one of the accused in the Bhima Koregaon case — time to reply to the application filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking to record his statement in connection with a money laundering case registered by the agency last year in which he is allegedly a prime suspect..Gadling has to file his response before the Court by August 10. Gadling is presently lodged in Taloja prison in Mumbai awaiting trial in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon riots case in which he is accused of organising the Elgar Parishad event where inciteful speeches were made leading to riots. The ED in its application has sought permission to interrogate Gadling who according to them conspired with the other active members of the outlawed CPI (Maoist) members in raising money and disbursing it for "violent activities”. After having established Gadling's role, it sought to record his statement in accordance with Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).Special judge Rajesh Kataria asked the ED if summons had been issued to Gadling as per Section 50.Special Public Prosecutor Sunil Gonsalves stated that Gadling does not have to come to the ED office but investigators will go to jail to record his statement and, hence, summons is not required to be issued.The Court remarked that the ED would not be prejudiced if a notice is issued to Gadling and he is given time to reply..Meanwhile Arun Ferreira - another accused in the Elgaar Parishad case - on Friday told a special court that certain emails relied upon by the prosecution as evidence were intercepted without authorisation as the National Investigating Agency (NIA) had not provided an order from a competent authority regarding their interception.The NIA insisted that the emails had been downloaded during its investigation in accordance with normal protocol and denied that there had been any interception.The agency told the Court that a document taken from one of the devices of another accused Rona Wilson contained an email ID and password, and that the emails were downloaded in the presence of outside witnesses and a cyber specialist. Since the agency did not access the emails before they were delivered to their intended recipient, it was argued that downloading emails did not constitute "interception."The emails allegedly have communication regarding arms and ammunition that form a part of the evidence against the accused who are alleged to be part of CPI (Maoist).