M3M case: Delhi HC not to interfere in order given by Panchkula court
Bhartesh Singh Thakur
Chandigarh, June 17
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere in the remand order of a Panchkula court against M3M group’s promoters, Basant Bansal and his son Pankaj Bansal, in the judge bribery case.
Basant Bansal is a director in M3M India Holdings Private Ltd since 2012, and Pankaj Bansal was a director in M3M India Private Limited from 2011 to April 1, 2023.
Approach Punjab and Haryana HC
Once the order of remand has been passed by the competent court at Panchkula, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to approach the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Any order passed by this court, once an order of remand has been passed by the Panchkula court, would be improper. Justice Jasmeet Singh, Holding Vacation Bench of Delhi High Court
A Panchkula court had granted the Enforcement Directorate (ED) five days’ remand of the father-son duo on June 15. Based on Haryana Anti-Corruption Bureau’s (ACB) FIR dated April 17, the ED had registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on June 13 against judge Sudhir Parmar, since suspended, his nephew Ajay Parmar, Roop Bansal, one of the promoters of M3M, and others. The investigation agency arrested Basant and Pankaj on June 14 and Ajay Parmar on June 15.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh had granted interim protection to Basant Bansal on June 9, saying that in case of arrest, “he shall be released on bail” on a personal bond of Rs 10 lakh with two sureties of the like amount in the ED case of siphoning off Rs 404 crore of homebuyers’ investments in transactions with the IREO group.
After their arrest, the Bansals had approached the Delhi court. Senior advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, N Hariharan and Mohit Mathur, appearing for the Bansals, stated that when the matter came up for hearing for anticipatory bail of the Bansals on June 9, with regard to the IREO group transactions, it was the ED’s duty to have brought the factum of the judge bribery case to the notice of the judge.
They said the FIR was registered prior in time to the date when the matter was argued and “the learned single judge would have also considered the same”. They stated that the Bansals were never served with summons on the second ECIR, which was based on the ACB’s FIR. The same was a concocted story by the ED, they claimed.
However, Assistant Solicitor-General SV Raju, special counsel for the ED, stated that the order of June 9 was with regard to the IREO group case and not with regard to the second ECIR in the judge bribery case. He said based on the second ECIR, “the court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula has already passed an order of remand”, remanding the Bansals to ED custody.
He added that by entertaining the application for interim directions, “this court would be exercising jurisdiction over Panchkula court which is not permissible in law”.
In his order dated June 16, Justice Jasmeet Singh, who is holding the Vacation Bench, said, “I am of the view that once the order of remand has been passed by the competent court at Panchkula, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to approach the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, challenging the order of remand. Any order passed by this court, once an order of remand has been passed by the Panchkula court, would be improper.”
