The special PMLA court refused to grant bail to Ahmedabad resident Khilji Mustakali and Surat resident Vasim Bhesaniya, booked in connection with the Malegaon money laundering case. The court rejected their pleas filed separately noting that there is prima facie evidence of their involvement.
Mustakali claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He argued that he neither has created any fake bank accounts nor transferred the said funds into any other bank accounts.
However, opposing the plea, the prosecution claimed that Mustakali was instrumental in the establishment of two shell entities M/s Haresh Trading Co and M/s Hardik Enterprises through his close accomplices, opening of bank accounts in the name of these entities under the APMC Scheme, from where more than Rs28 crore in cash was withdrawn in 3-4 months. He allegedly received commission for making arrangements of cash withdrawal from Axis Bank accounts of both the said entities, the ED had contended.
The agency further claimed that he was also found involved in destruction of records so that his role in the money laundering process could not be determined. He is accused of deleting WhatsApp conversations made between him and the alleged mastermind Mehmood Bhagad alias Challenger King after ED began the probe.
After hearing both, the court noted, “Though it might be that no amount is credited in the account of Mustakali, the fact remains that the applicant is instrumental in handling proceeds of crime, which is by withdrawing it from the bank account and receiving commission for it and handing it over.”
Bhesaniya, on the other hand, had claimed that he only withdrew an amount of Rs198.41 crore from the bank accounts in cash. He had claimed that he is just an employee with a salary of Rs33,000 per month and has no knowledge of the source of the money. The ED on the other had claimed that Bhesaniya worked for the key accused Challenger King. It was claimed that he was involved in opening a fake account, withdrawal of cash and handing it over with Angadia.
The court refused to grant him bail observing that he has handled the proceeds of crime and has taken part in its concealment, projecting and claiming it as an untainted amount.
