The Enforcement Directorate (ED) moved the Bombay High Court on Wednesday challenging an order of a special court granting bail to Sanjay Raut, Rajya Sabha MP from Uddhav Thackeray faction of Shiv Sena. .The matter was mentioned before Justice Bharati Dangre who agreed to list it tomorrow but refused to suspend the bail order. She stated that she cannot pass sweeping orders under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) as requested by ED when the plea filed by the agency was one under Section 439(2) of CrPC."I will hear it tomorrow on the aspect of 439(2). If you (ED) want Section 482 stay that is a different part, you have not come to me under Section 482. That jurisdiction is different," Justice Dangre said.She noted that while the High Court has power to suspend order of bail under Section 482 CrPC read with Section 439, the plea by ED was limited to the prayer under Section 439."The application before me is exclusively under 439. ASG prays that application be listed tomorrow. The application is placed before me without the number. The registry is directed to forthwith grant the number (number the petition)," the Court directed.The order paves the way for release of Raut from jail. Raut was granted bail by the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in a money laundering case today. Within hours, the agency moved the High Court challenging the order, even before the order was made available to the parties. .Raut was arrested by the ED on July 31 in connection with the money laundering case.He was summoned for questioning in the re-development of Patra chawl and related transactions involving his wife and ‘associates’. He was arrested on July 31 and after spending 8 days in ED’s custody, Raut was remanded to judicial custody.He moved for bail on September 7 claiming that ED’s case against him was filed to crush the opposition faced by the ruling party. He also contended that the amount of ₹1.06 crore shown as proceeds of crime was accounted for and explained.The agency on the other hand, contended that the offence in the present case was for Raut’s private gain at the cost of public fund.The central agency also contended that Raut played a major role in the offence through his proxy and alleged aide Pravin Raut.