The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a bail plea filed by gangster Iqbal Mirchi’s close aide Humayun Merchant, who is lodged in Taloja prison, and said it should be decided on merits.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice S.S. Shinde was hearing the plea of Merchant, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on August 22, 2019. He allegedly played a crucial role in the deal of three properties — Rabia Mansion, Sea View and Marium Lodge, Worli — while acting on behalf of Mirchi, and actively assisted him in laundering proceeds of crime.
The ED also alleged that Merchant had arranged dummy tenants, who were found to be his close relatives, in the said buildings. He also admitted to have received payments of ₹5 crore in his bank account with Bank of India from Sunblink and transferred the money to the accounts of Junaid Memon, Mirchi’s son.
Merchant challenged the decision taken by a high-powered committee, constituted on an order of the Supreme Court to release prisoners. His grievance is that the committee excludes undertrials booked for serious economic offences, bank scams, and offences under special enactments like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which, according to the committee, provides for additional restrictions on grant of bail in addition to those under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari and advocate Sujay Kantawala said Merchant is a septuagenarian, presently in custody for alleged commission of offences under the PMLA. Merchant’s two applications for regular bail are pending before the High Court and the sessions court.
Mr. Chaudhari said the court must clarify that the decision of the committee must not deflect the course of justice while the application for regular bail of the petitioner is taken up.
The Bench said, “We have no doubt in our mind that an administrative decision of the nature taken by the committee for a specific purpose — to ensure decongestion in the correctional homes as a result of outbreak of the pandemic — can hardly be seen to have any debilitating effect on a judicial forum when it is approached by an accused under arrest to consider his prayer for bail on settled parameters.”
The court said, “Needless to observe, despite the committee by its decision not having conferred any benefit on him, the petitioner’s application for bail as of necessity has to be considered on its own merits without being influenced thereby.”
