Former Mumbai Police commissioner Sanjay Pandey told a Delhi court on Tuesday that he did not tap phones of NSE employees and he was framed for investigating high-profile political cases, while arguing for his bail in a money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Special Judge Sunena Sharma, however, sent Pandey to judicial custody till August 16. During the hearing, Pandey had spoken directly to the judge, submitting that he did not tap phones at the NSE.
“I am an IT expert. I was Director General [of Police] of Maharashtra, they were hunting how ISEC [Pandey’s company] can be framed. The call monitoring was going on. We did not tap any phones. They are trying to frame me in the co-location scam. They tried to fix me. Call monitoring was on and they were trying to call all my colleagues — right from top to the lowest common denominator. But they couldn’t find anything in co-location,” Pandey said.
Pandey’s lawyer advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir told the court that his client did not take any remuneration when he was an officer. Only an amount of Rs 74 lakh was found in his bank account and since the investigation was documentary in nature, he should not be sent to judicial custody “to ruin his reputation for perpetuity”, the lawyer said.
The Enforcement Directorate represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and Special Public Prosecutor NK Matta are yet to address arguments, however, they have filed their written reply to the bail application. Pandey’s lawyers submitted that during his tenure, he had investigated and prosecuted several high-profile and politically sensitive cases.
“It is ex-facie evident that the instant proceedings are a political fallout of the applicant’s honest and sincere discharge of his duties as a senior police officer,” his lawyers submitted. Pandey’s lawyers submitted that the case was “clearly motivated by political considerations” and was evident from the fact that an offence that allegedly occurred between 2009 and 2017 is being investigated 13 years after its purported commencement; and that too within a week of the applicant demitting his office.
Newsletter | Click to get the day’s best explainers in your inbox
“It appears that the applicant is arraigned in the present case, for no fault of his own, and only to fulfil some political vendetta,” his lawyers submitted.