VIJAY DEO JHA
Ranchi, Oct 17: A controversy has erupted over Amit Agrawal filing criminal petition before the Supreme Court in cash for PIL case as his signature on the Vakalatnama was verified by the superintendent of the Birsa Munda Central Jail on October 12 when he was not in the judicial custody but under police custody of the Enforcement Directorate.
Notably, the Supreme Court on Monday rejected his petition in which he had demanded quashing of chargesheet against him. Despite powerful arguments placed by his lawyer Kapil Sibal the Supreme Court rejected all contentions and said that the petitioner should approach the jurisdictional high court.
But insiders are baffled over Jharkhand jail authority verifying the signature of Amit Agarwal on the Vakalatnama evolve under police custody of the ED.
Amit Agrawal was arrested by the agency on October 7 and on the next day he was produced before the special PMLA court. The special court forwarded him to 7 days of police remand for questioning. On October 14 the agency submitted prosecution complaint against Amit Agarwal and advocate Rajiv Kumar. On this date he was sent to the judicial custody. It means that Amit Agarwal was in the custody of Enforcement Directorate from October 7 till afternoon of October 14. Only on October 9 he was kept at Birsa Munda jail.
Now question arises that in what capacity and how Birsa Munda Central Jail verified his signature on the vakalatnama on October 12 when he was not in the judicial custody. Insiders said that the ED is investigating the matter and also taking legal consultations.
“During this period he was under custody of the ED. He spent his night at Birsa Munda jail in Ranchi on October 9. The jail authorities should explain that how they verified his signature when he was not in the judicial custody or inside the jail on that date,” said sources in the agency.
ED did not get copy of petition of Amit Agarwal
Notably, ED also did not get the copy of the petition which Amit Agarwal filed before the Supreme Court whereas the Kolkata police was served with a copy.
Notably, advocate Rajiv Kumar who was arguing a shell company related PIL 4290/21 for the petitioner Shiv Shankar Sharma was arrested on July 31st in Kolkata along with cash. His arrest was made on the basis of a written complaint of Amit Agrawal that Rajiv Kumar forced him to pay Rs 10 Crore not to drag his name as well as his company in the PIL. Amit Agrawal also said that Rajiv Kumar also told him that amounts were required as he had to manage court and enforcement agencies officials. Kolkata police even issued notice to a senior official of ED.
About 10 days back the ED arrested Amit Agrawal and filed a prosecution complaint against him and Rajiv Kumar. ED stated that a substantial portion of the proceeds of the crime of an illegal mining scam in Jharkhand worth Rs 1000 Crore, was laundered through several companies of Amit Agrawal.
The agency charged him with bribing Rajiv Kumar and getting him trapped to push the investigation away so that the concealed proceeds of crime do not surface.
ED further stated that Amit Agrawal had an ‘unlawful extraneous purpose’ to prevent any adverse order of the Jharkhand High Court against him and his companies in ongoing shell companies related PIL.
This PIL is primarily against Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren and the petitioner sought a CBI inquiry alleging the CM and his associates for laundering tainted money through shell companies including that of Amit Agrawal.
The ED said that he got Rajiv Kumar trapped to frustrate the PIL by using his good relations and proximity with the Kolkata Police.
ED stated that Rajiv Kumar did not contact him; rather, Amit Agrawal fraudulently established contact with Rajiv Kumar through Sonu Agrawal who is the terror funding accused of the NIA.
The FIR was registered against Rajiv Kumar and Shiv Shankar Sharma at Hare Street police station under section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 and section 120B, and section 384 of IPC.
The ED stated that it was Amit Agrawal who contacted Rajiv Kumar through Sonu Agrawal. Whereas, Amit Agrawal falsely stated in his complaint to the police that Rajiv Kumar contacted him for settling the PIL in lieu of a bribe. Amit Agrawal continuously played before the ED and cooked the story of threat or fear from Rajiv Kumar. But he himself contacted and induced him for a bribe and get him trapped with the help of acquainted police officers of Kolkata Police. Thus, the said case of bribery is nothing but to involve government agencies in trouble and motivated by the anticipated legal benefit in PIL 4290/2021.
