The CBI while opposing the bail plea of the former cabinet minister Anil Deshmukh told the Bombay High Court that a person accused in money laundering case cannot be a ground for him to be released on bail in corruption.
The Central Bureau of Investigation in its affidavit said that there are serious charges like corruption,extortion and criminal conspiracy against Deshmukh.
The agency in its reply has indicated that the grant of bail to the applicant (Deshmukh) in PMLA cannot be a fait accompli to enlarge him on bail in the present case.
The former minister had moved to the high court soon after his regular bail plea was rejected by the Special court in Mumbai on October 22.
The leader has been in trouble due to two major investigations which arise from a single point of allegation..The CBI has alleged him of corruption charges whereas the ED wants him for the act of money laundering.
On October 4, a bail was granted to him on Money laundering by the Bombay High Court,which was later upheld by the Apex court.
The CBI special court however,refused to grant him bail.He then approached High Court seeking bail,citing the observations by the Highcourt which special court outrightly rejected.
The credibility of statement by Mumbai cop Sachin Vaze was questioned by the High Court which said that Deshmukh may not be convicted
In its reply affidavit, CBI said the statements of Waze recorded under the PMLA could not be equated with his statements recorded before the judicial magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the corruption case.
The CBI affidavit said that in order of the High Court granting bail to the applicant in PMLA case, the probative value of statement of Sachin Waze is discussed in capacity of a co-accused whereas in the present (corruption) case, he had been granted pardon and therefore ceases to be an accused and now is a prosecution witness.
The affidavit said that PMLA case is not an offshoot of the present case. It is a separate and distinct offence under the PC Act and must be considered in that perspective.
Justice Bharati Dangre before who the case was put, recused from hearing the case. This he has done before also.
The matter will now be mentioned before Justice SK Shinde.