Situation towards Sanjay Raut not dependent on complainant: ED tells courtroom
The ED advised a special PMLA court that the revenue laundering circumstance in opposition to Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut is not dependent on any complainant.
Sanjay Raut was arrested by the ED on August 1 in money laundering scenario. (Photo: File)
- Case in opposition to Sanjay Raut is not dependent on complainant: ED
- Circumstance has its possess footing: ED to PMLA courtroom
- The courtroom asked the complainant to approach law enforcement for security
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday instructed a specific PMLA court that the income laundering circumstance from Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut has its very own footing and is not dependent on any complainant.
Advocate Venegaonkar, showing for the ED, “The ED case stands on its very own footing and not that of any complainant. No one speaks for ED apart from ED.”
On Friday, a witness in the situation informed the court docket that she was remaining threatened for statements versus Sanjay Raut. Advocate Ranjeet Sangle showing for Sapna Patkar, the witness, informed the distinctive court docket that she is a single of the prime witnesses in the situation and she is remaining threatened.
Browse | Supreme Court asks Centre to frame policy for early launch of convicts
Advocate Sangle pointed to an audio recording of threats getting meted out to her. Advocate Manoj Mohite appearing for Sanjay Raut clarified that all those clips are mentioned to be from 2016.
Previously, Patkar had alleged that she was being threatened and the community law enforcement stations have been not registering her complaint.
Having said that, the judge refused to listen to Sangle, stating that this was a circumstance concerning the investigating company and the court for remand of the accused and that no a person else could intervene in among.
When advocate Sangle persisted by stating that Patkar was becoming threatened till date, the judge stated “He’s underneath arrest. How can he threaten? The proceedings prior to the courtroom is with regards to inquiry that is confined to progress of the investigation. Regardless of whether further more remand is justified or not that is what is to be identified. This is not a bail software.”
The judge requested advocate Sangle to show locus and provision for intervention application to be permitted in a remand hearing. Advocate Sangle stated that Patkar had approached the ED for security but the probe company was not accomplishing the identical.
The court docket then asked Patkar to method the related law enforcement station but reiterated that no intervention will be entertained in this method.
— Ends —