New Delhi: A Delhi court has granted Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) two-day police custody of former Delhi Jal Board (DJB) CEO Udit Prakash and alleged middleman Nagendra Yadav, holding that their custodial interrogation was necessary to probe a “deep-rooted, multi-layered conspiracy involving corruption of several crores of rupees”.
Because a PMLA complaint has already been filed and the route of the proceeds of crime has been investigated by ED under PMLA, it can’t mean that a predicate offence need not be investigated further, rejecting the defence’s argument that police custody was unnecessary as Enforcement Directorate (ED) had already investigated the proceeds of crime under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the court said: “Merely.
Special judge Dig Vinay Singh said police custody was required for a “fair investigation” and to “unearth other aspects of the conspiracy”, including the involvement of other persons. The court also examined a disputed loan agreement and observed, “Apparently it does not appear to be a typographical error in the date,” noting that Prakash himself had signed the document dated Feb 10, 2023. The court said ACB’s apprehension that the loan agreement “may have been subsequently created” to give the transaction “a colour of genuineness cannot be brushed aside at this stage”. It further observed that witness statements “point finger regarding the involvement of the accused in conspiracy”. The court said the predicate offence and the PMLA offence were “completely independent and unconnected”.
On Prakash’s alleged role, prosecutor Manish Rawat submitted that he had approved various corrigendums after their contents were allegedly shared with him by co-accused on WhatsApp before their official issuance. It also held that the absence of arrest by ED could not bar police custody in the predicate offence. The court noted that the roles of both accused had emerged in subsequent witness statements and held that two-day police custody was necessary for a fair investigation.
With regard to Yadav, the court said his alleged role in hawala transactions required further investigation.