DK Shivakumar: Delhi HC reserves order in bail plea after ED makes last-minute submissions

After giving a last minute opportunity to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to make its submissions in the bail plea filed by Congress leader DK Shivakumar in the money laundering case he has been implicated in, the Delhi High Court reserved its order..A Single Judge Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait initially proceeded to reserve its order in the bail plea in the absence of counsel for the ED..When the case up for hearing today at 3:30 pm, the Court was informed that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj and Standing Counsel Amit Mahajan were all held up at Rouse Avenue Court..The proxy counsel for ED thus sought an accommodation of half an hour as Mahajan was on his way. Justice Kait did not take too kindly to the request. He said,.“This is unacceptable…You cannot play hide and seek with the Court.”.The judge remarked that he was bound to take a decision on the bail plea in order to enable the accused to pursue appropriate legal avenues in case of denial of bail. He thus said,.“Now it is 3:50 pm, proxy counsel (for ED) submits that all the law officers are held up in Rouse Avenue, therefore, he seeks time to argue…since none appeared on behalf of ED to argue, the petition is reserved for order.”.However, the Court later modified this order so as to allow Natraj to argue the case today itself after a request for the same was made by the ASG in chambers..The ED case against DK Shivakumar stems from an income tax raid conducted in 2017..A money laundering case was registered against him pursuant to an ECIR on the basis of a complaint filed by the Income Tax authorities for offences punishable under Section 276C(1), 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 193, 199 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860..Shivakumar has sought bail on the ground that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case against him could not be sustained in view of the absence of a scheduled predicate offence..It was submitted that the predicate offence in the case, i.e. Section 276C(1), 277 and 278 IT Act, was not a scheduled offence under the PMLA, and thus ED had no jurisdiction to initiate the probe..Shivakumar has claimed that all his assests were duly declared in his income tax declarations as well as Nomination Affidavits..The Enforcement Directorate has sought the rejection of the bail plea on the ground that it is a “classic case of money laundering” which “affects the economy of the country”..It has justified the initiation of PMLA investigation on the ground that the Section 120B IPC, which is a predicate offence, is a scheduled offence under PMLA..ED has claimed that the assets and money owned by Shivakumar and his family are disproportionate in nature and have been possesed by the misuse of public office. It has also clarified that the ED investigation was separate and independent of the investigation under the Income Tax Act..Claiming that the investigation in the case was ongoing, ED has sought the refusal on bail to DK Shivakumar. It has apprehended that if enlarged in bail, he would resort to evidence tampering and influencing the witness..Shivakumar had moved the High Court for bail last month after the same was rejected by the Special CBI Court..Shivakumar was arrested by the ED on September 3 after undergoing four days of interrogation in relation to the case. The ED had cited Shivakumar’s non-cooperation during the questioning as the reason for his arrest..After the end of the maximum period of police custody post arrest, DK Shivakumar was sent to 14-day judicial custody on September 17. His custody ends on October 25.