A special court has declined to extend the interim bail granted to HDIL promoter Rakesh Wadhawan on medical grounds in the Rs 4,300-crore Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative (PMC) Bank scam case, observing that the arguments submitted by his lawyer were misleading.
In his order of February 13, special judge M G Deshpande held that the accused cannot capitalise on the earlier interim relief granted to him for “the hollow and blanket prayer”.
Wadhawan's interim bail
In November last year, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to the founder of Housing Development Infrastructure Limited (HDIL) on medical grounds in a predicate offence, linked to the PMLA case, that is being probed by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Mumbai police.
It was further extended by the Bombay High Court till February 8 this year for three weeks on certain conditions to enable the accused to undergo health-related tests.
The PMLA court had earlier granted interim bail to Wadhawan for three months, which ended on February 9. Therefore the special PMLA court should continue the previously granted interim bail to the accused for three months, his lawyer submitted.
Special Public Prosecutor Sunil Gonsalves, who represented the ED, contended that the accused had misled the court. He said that the order passed by the apex court was particularly in respect of the predicate offence (EOW case) and ED was not a party in that matter. Additionally, Wadhawan’s involvement in the PMLA case and his status of being an undertrial prisoner was not brought before the Supreme Court, the special public prosecutor argued.
It was presented before the HC, which confined the interim relief only to the EOW case and not in respect of the PMLA case registered by the ED, Gonsalves submitted. Special judge Deshpande said in his order that the court was constrained to note that Wadhawan could not make capital of earlier interim relief for the “hollow and blanket prayer” made in the application.
It is because that time the court extended the said relief holding that the “accused could prefer appropriate application before the high court and the Supreme Court”, the judge said.
