The Bombay High Court on Monday directed the Enforcement Directorate and the Maharashtra Government to file their affidavits in response to a petition by former State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh seeking a temporary stay on framing of charges in the money laundering case lodged against him by the Enforcement Directorate. Deshmukh approached a single-judge bench of Justice Ashwin Bhobe, seeking a directive to the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to first consider the case lodged against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation, which he described as the predicate offence, before proceeding with the money laundering matter. The High Court noted that both the ED and the State counsel were present, and instead of issuing notice, asked the respondents to file their affidavits by March 5 in reply to Deshmukh’s plea. In his petition, filed through advocate Inderpal Singh, Deshmukh challenged the order passed on November 11, 2025 by the Special PMLA Court, which rejected his application seeking to defer the framing of charges in the money laundering case against him. He contended that because the ED case is premised on the predicate offence lodged by the CBI, the Special Court ought to have considered and dealt with the CBI case first, then proceed with the ED case, but his application to that effect was dismissed by the Special Court, prompting his move to the High Court.
Deshmukh’s money laundering case stems from allegations first brought up in a letter by the former Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, accusing him of instructing dismissed police officer Sachin Waze and others to collect illegal funds from bar owners. Following a High Court order on April 5, 2021 to conduct a preliminary enquiry into this letter, the CBI registered an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and subsequently the ED’s money laundering case was based on that corruption FIR. According to the ED’s probe, as Home Minister of Maharashtra, Deshmukh received at least Rs 4.7 crore in illegal gratification in cash from various orchestra bar owners between December 2020 and February 2021 through dismissed officer Waze. He was arrested by the ED on November 2, 2021 and booked under sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, which were based on the corruption case lodged by the CBI. In the proceedings before the High Court, senior advocate Vikram Chaudhary appeared for Deshmukh virtually and apprised the court of the basic facts of his plea. The High Court directed the ED and State to respond to Deshmukh’s petition without issuing formal notice, setting a deadline for their affidavits.
Deshmukh’s plea in the High Court focuses on the sequence in which matters should be dealt with, arguing that the predicate CBI corruption case should be addressed and concluded ahead of the framing of charges in the money laundering case, as the latter is derived from the former. The Special PMLA Court, however, had earlier rejected his plea seeking to defer the framing of charges on this basis, finding no merit in delaying the process. Deshmukh’s petition in the High Court invokes powers to challenge that order and requests interim relief in the form of a stay on framing of PMLA charges until the predicate offence case is dealt with. During the brief hearing in the High Court, the bench took note of the submissions and the presence of counsel for respondents, and fixed the date by which the ED and State must file their affidavits, providing them the opportunity to set out their stand on Deshmukh’s contentions.
The connection between the corruption allegations and the money laundering case as framed by the ED is central to Deshmukh’s argument. He maintains that the derivative money laundering proceedings should await the resolution of the predicate corruption case by the CBI Special Court. He asserts that allowing framing of charges in the ED’s case without first addressing the foundation laid by the CBI’s FIR could prejudice his defence. In its order of November 11, 2025, the Special PMLA Court refused to defer framing of charges, and Deshmukh subsequently moved the Bombay High Court challenging that decision as being improper. The High Court’s current directions for the ED and the Maharashtra Government to file affidavits set the stage for further legal argument on this issue, with the court to consider the principles underlying PMLA proceedings and the relationship between predicate offences and consequent money laundering charges.
Deshmukh’s legal troubles have spanned several years, with the roots of the present litigation traceable to allegations made in 2021. Following the High Court’s directive for a preliminary enquiry into the allegations contained in the letter by the former Commissioner of Police, the CBI registered a corruption FIR against Deshmukh, and the ED later initiated its own investigation into alleged proceeds of crime derived from bribery and illegal gratification. As part of that investigation, the ED arrested Deshmukh and initiated money laundering charges, leading to his detention and subsequent bail proceedings. In October 2022, the Bombay High Court had granted bail to Deshmukh in the PMLA case and later in the corruption FIR lodged by the CBI. Despite these interim orders granting bail, both the corruption and money laundering cases have continued to advance through the judicial process, with various legal challenges and hearings before different courts. Deshmukh’s current plea before the High Court thus represents a further step in his efforts to manage the progress of the legal proceedings against him, specifically seeking to influence the procedural sequencing of charge-framing in the money laundering case relative to the predicate corruption offence.
In directing the respondents to file affidavits responding to Deshmukh’s plea, the Bombay High Court has provided both parties the opportunity to present their positions in written form prior to any further hearing. Deshmukh’s counsel has articulated the foundational basis for his application, emphasising the centrality of the predicate offence to the PMLA action and seeking judicial recognition that the Special Court should not proceed to frame charges in the money laundering case until the predicate CBI case is resolved or at least addressed. The ED and the State will now articulate their response to this proposition in affidavits due by the court’s stipulated deadline, after which the High Court may proceed to consider the merits of Deshmukh’s plea and determine whether any interim relief or directions are warranted. The legal discourse before the High Court reflects ongoing debates in criminal procedure regarding the interplay of separate but related prosecutions and the appropriate order in which different facets of such litigation should proceed.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.