The Delhi High Court on Tuesday heard the bail application of Ved Pal Tanwar, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for alleged involvement in illegal mining activities in Haryana's Dadam area.
Appearing for Tanwar, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa argued that his client was the only person arrested in the case, asserting that no other accused had faced similar action.
During the hearing, Pahwa contended that the case was primarily based on Section 7 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), which is no longer classified as a scheduled offense under PMLA. He pointed out that the ED had incorrectly cited this provision in the grounds of arrest, despite its inapplicability.
He further highlighted that the initial FIR, lodged by the Director, alleged that unscientific mining had caused the deaths of four individuals. However, he emphasized that Section 7 had been a scheduled offense only temporarily and no longer held that status.
Refuting allegations in the FIR, Pahwa maintained that Tanwar was never a partner in GMM Company, as claimed by the prosecution. He stressed that, given the absence of a scheduled offense, his client was entitled to bail.
Questioning the ED’s jurisdiction, Pahwa argued that the agency could not prosecute an offense that no longer fell within the PMLA framework. He contended that the ED was exceeding its legal mandate by acting as a complainant, which was not permissible under the law.
In support of his arguments, Pahwa cited the Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling in Surender Panwar vs. Directorate of Enforcement, where bail was granted in an illegal mining case on similar grounds. He also invoked the doctrine of parity, referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Arvind Kejriwal case, which held that parity considerations extend not only to arrested persons but also to those who have not been taken into custody.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy