A special court dealing with cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) has rejected the bail application of Purushottam Chavan, who is the husband of a senior IPS officer. This decision comes in light of allegations surrounding a Rs 263 crore Income Tax Refund ‘fraud’ case. The court stated that there is prima facie evidence suggesting that Chavan received proceeds from the crime.
Chavan was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in May this year. The agency claims that Tanaji Adhikari, a former senior tax assistant, was allegedly involved in fraudulently generating and issuing tax deducted at source (TDS) refunds amounting to Rs 263.95 crore from the Income-Tax Department, along with other accused individuals.
In his bail plea, Chavan contended that he was not named in the First Information Report (FIR) or the first chargesheet. He argued that the only evidence against him was the statement of a co-accused and that he had not been given an opportunity to explain his side. Chavan further stated that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate his involvement in the layering of the funds.
The ED has claimed that co-accused Rajesh Batreja paid Chavan Rs 10.40 crore over time, which was allegedly sourced from Adhikari, contributing to the laundering of crime proceeds. Moreover, the ED alleged that Chavan established a company in Dubai, and funds were withdrawn from a bank account held by Batreja, indicating a motive to conceal and divert the proceeds of the crime.
Special Judge A C Daga emphasized that aside from the statement of the co-accused, there was prima facie evidence against Chavan. The court remarked that Rajesh Batreja’s statement indicated an assurance from Chavan regarding settling his case for Rs. 11 crore, and that he made payments totaling Rs. 10.40 crore to Chavan.
Although Chavan sought bail on medical grounds, the court found no evidence in the records suggesting that he requires hospital treatment. The court stated, “It is settled law that merely for asking no sick or infirm person is required to be released on bail. The nature of sickness, its effect on the accused has to be taken into consideration. In this matter, nothing before me which goes to show that the health of the applicant/accused has deteriorated because of incarceration.”
