The Enforcement Directorate (ED) was served notice by the Rouse Avenue Court on Monday regarding AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan's plea for anticipatory bail in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case. Khan, who has been summoned by the ED for today, sought legal protection through this plea.

Special Judge Rakesh Syal has issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and has scheduled further hearing on Tuesday regarding the anticipatory bail application. The application was submitted by advocate Rajat Bhardwaj on behalf of AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case.

Special Judge Rakesh Syal has issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and has scheduled further hearing on Tuesday regarding the anticipatory bail application. The application was submitted by advocate Rajat Bhardwaj on behalf of AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy argued on behalf of AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan and requested interim protection from the court. However, the court declined to grant the relief. Guruswamy highlighted that Khan had been summoned in connection with a money laundering case. She further emphasized the issue of filing two FIRs pertaining to the same case. The first FIR, dated November 23, 2016, was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The allegation against the petitioner is that he was wrongfully appointed as chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board. Although the agency initially closed the matter, terming it as administrative irregularities, they subsequently utilized it as grounds for filing a second FIR.

"It is a cardinal principle of criminal law that there cannot be two FIRs for one cause. In the two FIRs they tried to restart the case," said the Counsel.

Guruswamy also pointed out that the bail orders in both cases reached the same conclusion: that there was no loss to the exchequer. However, she acknowledged that there is an allegation regarding the recruitment of 33 contractual employees and irregularities in these appointments.

On January 19, 2024, the Rouse Avenue Court acknowledged the Prosecution Complaint (Charge sheet) filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case. The ED has charged four individuals: Zeeshan Haider, Javed Imam Siddiqui, Dawood Nasir, and Qausar Imam Siddiqui.

During the hearing regarding the consideration of the Charge sheet, the ED alleged that a property worth ₹36 crores was purchased with ill-gotten money at the behest of AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan. It was further alleged that Khan handed over ₹8 crore in cash in relation to this matter.

In response to a query concerning the involvement of Amanatullah Khan, the counsel representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) stated that further investigation regarding the roles of other individuals is ongoing.

Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Manish Jain, representing the ED, informed that during the investigation of this Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case, the ED took into account the FIRs registered previously by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), and Delhi Police.

It was additionally stated that the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) had requested an investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against MLA and former chairman Amanatullah Khan. Allegedly, properties were acquired in Delhi, Telangana, and Uttarakhand using ill-gotten funds.

The ACB conducted searches at premises owned and controlled by Hamid Ali Khan and Qausar Imam Siddiqui. During these searches, incriminating evidence and illegal weapons were reportedly recovered, as submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

During the searches, three diaries were also recovered. Qausar Imam Siddiqui maintained these diaries.

Regarding the recovery of illegal weapons, an FIR was registered at police station Jamia Nagar under the section of the Arms Act.

It was also alleged that he purchased properties in the name of his benamidar Zeeshan Haider.

The Counsel for ED submitted that out of the ₹36 crore involved, evidence indicates a cash transaction of ₹27 crore. This constitutes a clear and established case against the accused individuals, warranting their summons in the matter.