Mumbai: A special court, while denying bail recently to Sanjeev Palande, the personal secretary of former state home minister Anil Deshmukh, in a money laundering case in which Deshmukh too is in custody, has said that Palande could not show any reason why dismissed cop Sachin Vaze would implicate him in a false case.
The bail application was rejected on December 7; however, the detailed order copy was made available on Thursday.
Seeking bail, Palande had claimed that he was victimised by Vaze, the main accused in the money laundering case, who is in judicial custody for his alleged role in Antilia bomb scare and Mansukh Hiran murder cases.
Vaze, in his statements to Enforcement Directorate (ED) officers had said that Palande oversaw the bribe collection from city bars and restaurants that Deshmukh had instructed him to make. He had also stated that he had handed Palande Rs 20 crore of the Rs 40 crore collected from DCPs for favourable transfer postings.
“There is nothing to show that Sachin Vaze and the present accused have any personal grudge or any past enmity,” Special Judge MG Deshpande said. The court said that Vaze’s statements were corroborated with that of two police officers who are witnesses and even if it were to be assumed that Vaze had tried to implicate him, why would others do the same, it asked. It said that thus there was no substance in his contention that he was falsely implicated by Vaze. It also said that there was nothing to show he had enmity with the two police officers.
The court further said that there was nothing to show that the ED officers were on inimical terms with him which had led them to falsely implicate him by hook or by crook.
Palande’s advocate had argued that whatever was happening was due to political rivalry and vendetta and that was the reason for Palande’s false implication. “He being a Class-I government servant, how could he be a victim of political rivalry?” the court remarked in its order. It added that he was not directly or indirectly involved in politics nor did he have any past enmity with a political leader or party.
On Palande’s argument that there was absolutely no evidence against him, the court said it had to be noted that the demand and collection of bribes was a very secret process where persons involved do not leave any evidence. Similarly, it said, in a criminal conspiracy, direct evidence is rarely available and inferences have to be drawn and the same is the modus of money laundering.
Judge Deshpande said in his order that Palande and Kundan Shinde, the politician’s personal assistant, were closely involved in his illegal activities and actively assisting and collaborating with him. Referring to statements, the court said that they “clearly demonstrate that the present applicant knowingly assisted the work of collection of tainted money”, which it said ultimately attracted the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). It said the complaint and the statements are prima facie sufficient to hold how Palande knowingly assisted the work of collection of bribes, which itself is illegal and amounts to generation of proceeds of crime.
