Delhi riots: Court reserves order on ED plea for extension of custodial remand of Tahir Hussain

Follow us on

A Delhi court has reserved its order on a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate seeking an extension of custodial remand of ex-AAP councillor Tahir Hussain in a money laundering case against him in connection with the riots in northeast Delhi.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat has reserved the order on ED remand application and is likely to pronounce the same on September 7.

The economical watchdog has sought nine days' further custody of the politician.

The ED had produced Hussain through video conference on Saturday and had submitted that it had got his physical custody on August 31 instead of August 29 due to several formalities and his medical testing.

Meanwhile Advocate K.K. Manon, appearing for Hussain strongly opposed the ED's remand application citing various judgments in this regard.

Advocates Amit Mahajan and Naveen Kumar Matta appearing for ED submitted that Hussain has entered into a criminal conspiracy by fraudulently transferring money from the accounts of many companies.

"The money so obtained are proceeds of crime which were then used for committing various other scheduled offences. We need further remand of him to confront him with several documents etc," the ED stated in its plea.

Earlier, ED had submitted that the accused has also been arrested earlier in connection with northeast Delhi violence case. Lawyers representing ED also submitted that scheduled offences are attracted in the present case and it is suspected case of money laundering.

The lawyers also submitted that ED has also conducted searches at various premises and several incriminating documents and digital devices were recovered and seized from the accused's possessions.

"Whatsapp chats, bogus invoices and other incriminating documents have been recovered," the plea filed by the ED said.

Earlier in August, the East MCD sacked Hussain from the post of councillor.

The proposal to sack Hussain was brought to the House as a monthly agenda and was passed unanimously. His membership was scrapped under section 33(2) of the Delhi Municipal Act.

The said sections stated that if during three successive months, a councillor is, without permission of the corporation, absent from all the meetings thereof, the corporation may declare his seat vacant.