Court rejects ED plea for Bhujbal’s further custody

Chhagan Bhujba
Chhagan Bhujba

Mumbai, A court here today rejected Enforcement Directorate’s plea for further custody of former Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister of Chhagan Bhujbal, arrested in a money laundering case, saying sufficient grounds were not made out for this.

ED had sought seven more days custody of Bhujbal but judge P R Bhavke of the special court for Prevention of Money Laundering Act cases sent the senior NCP leader in judicial custody till March 31, saying “sufficient ground was not made out for further remand”.

Bhujbal, arrested on March 14, will be lodged in high- security Arthur Road jail here now.

Bhujbal told the court today that statements of some of the witnesses were lies and concocted stories.

Referring to the statement of one of the witnesses who is employee of the Mumbai Education Trust controlled by the Bhujbal family that he had seen bags of cash being brought to the office, Bhujbal questioned what was he doing there.

“I had gone gone to MET office’s guest house late in the night (that day) as I had to catch a flight early in the morning. What was this witness….doing there late at night when the people at MET leave for home at 5.30 pm?” he said.

The NCP leader also complained that yesterday ED officers recorded his statement till 4.30 pm and again turned up to question him further at 11.30 at night.

“I told them they can take my statement early in the morning today. I woke up early today. I told the ED officials that we have to go to the court today, so why were they delaying. They said they were busy with other work and kept me waiting,” he told the court.

One thought on “Court rejects ED plea for Bhujbal’s further custody

  • Just cannot understand why the court has to refuse giving extended custody, or deny it. The custody is essential for making a water tight charge sheet by knowing all there is to know about he crime. The judge that denies extended custody can just as well totally refuse the custody. That will favour he accused, helping him to hold back incriminating evidence. Does a court want that? It only means that the court is directly trying to help the accused. After all what loss does a court incur by extending custody prayed for by the police? This totally illogical and wrong system should stop. Also why should a court say that a certain test should be conducted on the accused or not? The judge surely does not know any thing basically about such tests !!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *