The Rouse Avenue Court summoned AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan in response to a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate regarding his failure to attend summons related to the Delhi Waqf Board Money Laundering case.

After considering the ED's arguments, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Divya Malhotra acknowledged the complaint and initiated proceedings under section 174 IPC, 1860, along with section 63 (4) of PMLA, 2002, for non-compliance with Section 50 of PMLA, 2002.

The Court instructed Amanatullah Khan to appear before it on April 20, 2024. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Simon Benjamin represented the Enforcement Directorate in the case. The federal investigative agency has claimed that Amanatullah Khan's status has shifted from being a witness to an accused individual due to his submission of an anticipatory bail plea and his avoidance of the investigation process.

The lawyer representing the Enforcement Directorate added that they were unable to finalize their investigation against him because he has consistently failed to make himself available for questioning by the agency.

Advocate Simon Benjamin emphasized that all the other individuals implicated in the case are aides of Amanatullah Khan, indicating his significantly greater involvement compared to the already arrested and charged individuals. Recently, the Delhi High Court rejected Amanatullah Khan's anticipatory bail petition, asserting that elected officials and public figures are not exempt from legal obligations.

The High Court stated that a separate category cannot be established for political leaders, emphasizing that it cannot endorse a new legal doctrine or a different set of regulations.

"Even the lawmakers should know that disobeying the law will have legal consequences, as all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law," justice Sharma had said.

The Court additionally affirmed the authority of investigating agencies in India to carry out their inquiries. In summary, the Court emphasized that a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) or any other public figure is subject to the laws of the country and is not exempt from them.

The conduct of such public figures is closely scrutinized by the public, and allowing exceptions for them sets a negative precedent," highlighted the High Court.

The High Court noted that the AAP MLA had evaded numerous summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), emphasizing that such repeated avoidance of summons is not permissible under the law. Furthermore, the High Court highlighted that the property under scrutiny was acquired for ₹36 crore, with ₹27 crore being paid in cash. The existence of two sales agreements also raises suspicion, according to the court's observations.

The high court said, "People also have a right to know what the truth is when their leader, whom they have elected, is being probed."

The Rouse Avenue court on March 1 dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan.

The High Court noted that the AAP MLA had evaded numerous summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), emphasizing that such repeated avoidance of summons is not permissible under the law.

Furthermore, the High Court highlighted that the property under scrutiny was acquired for ₹36 crore, with ₹27 crore being paid in cash. The existence of two sales agreements also raises suspicion, according to the court's observations.