In its detailed order to refuse bail for the personal secretary of former Maharashtra Interior Minister Anil Deshmukh, Sanjeev Palande, a special court found that nothing indicates that the co-defendant – the released Mumbai police officer Sachin Waze – had a personal grudge against him had him to falsely accuse him of being involved in a money laundering case.
The bail requests from Palande and Kundan Shinde, Deshmukh’s private assistant, were denied earlier this week. They were arrested in July by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the money laundering case alleging they helped Deshmukh reallocate funds received as bribes from cash owners to be used amid the Covid-19 Restrictions could work smoothly.
Palande had stated in his plea that there was no evidence against him and that he had been named by the ED for “political enmity and revenge”.
Special Judge MG Deshpande stated in his order that Palande was unable to explain why Waze would involve him in a wrong case.
“There is nothing to suggest that Mr. Sachin Waze and the current applicant harbor any personal grudges or previous hostility. In short, there is nothing to suggest that the applicant has any animosity or rivalry, or even a grudge, against anyone from ED or law enforcement officers like Mr. Sachin Waze. There is no evidence that the complainant has had any past enmity with Mr. Sachin Waze or anyone else, either “No. 1 “Mr. Anil Deshmukh or Mr. Param Bir Singh“, so the court.
It added that Palande is a Class I government employee and nothing has been shown to the court to prove he is directly or indirectly involved in politics or had hostility with a political leader or party.
Palande had said that ED had no evidence that he had any collusion with Deshmukh other than relying on Waze’s testimony, which is not reliable as he has been charged on multiple counts. The court said that in addition to Waze, two other police officers and other co-defendants had given testimony. It also says that bribes are solicited and collected in secret and that it cannot be accepted that there is no direct evidence.
The court said there was no explanation as to why Palande’s appointment warrant was issued retrospectively days after he started work. It stated that Palande himself did not deny having been present at a meeting when Waze claimed he met Deshmukh.
“It should be noted that the applicant’s presence at the said meeting is not contested, only the purpose that is part of the process is contested,” added the court.