The prosecution’s attempt to restrain the special 2G court from releasing the attached properties and execution of bail bond of Maran brothers - Dayanidhi and Kalanithi—after their discharge in the Rs 742.58 crore Aircel-Maxis deal cases on Friday met with probing question from the Supreme Court.
A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar was not in an agreement with the grounds taken by senior advocate Anand Grover, who was appointed by the apex court as SPP, to lead the prosecution on behalf of CBI and the Enforcement Directorate, saying that the discharge of the accused made it clear that this case was not of money laundering as alleged by ED.
“The simple logic is that this money (Rs 742.58 crore), considered to be that of laundering, is not found to be that of the proceeds of the crime,” the bench, also comprising Justices N V Ramana and D Y Chandrachud, said during the hearing in which the SPP was also told that he has not cured many of the defects in the plea which was raised in the morning.
However, when Grover tried to press for the relief in the absence of proper appeal filed either by CBI or ED, the bench said as per the special court’s order, this money was not a “part of the crime” alleged against the accused and this being so, then “there was no money laundering”.
The bench gave an opportunity to the SPP to “prepare” his case and “address arguments on Wednesday”.
Before the matter was posted to February 8, Grover tried to explain that why he himself moved the apex court without waiting for ED to file an appeal against the order of the special court which held that no case of conspiracy was made out against any of the accused persons in the case.
Grover said that ED will file a proper appeal after consultation and approval but due to urgency in the matter, he has moved the apex court with only two prayers that the bail bonds should not be executed and the attached properties should not be released.
He said that CBI will also take his opinion and his juniors would prepare a draft which will finally go to the Law Ministry for vetting.
The bench asked Grover as to why he didn’t approach the Delhi High Court with a revision petition as the issue of bail bonds is a too trivial.