Robert Vadra. File
| Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Wednesday (August 16) challenged the anticipatory bail granted to Robert Vadra, the son-in-law of former Congress president Sonia Gandhi, in a money laundering case, claiming non-compliance with bail conditions.
The ED’s counsel said he will file an additional affidavit showing breach of bail conditions by Mr. Vadra and sought some time to place it before the court.
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain granted the ED two weeks to file the additional affidavit and listed the matter for further hearing in September.
The ED had earlier told the High Court it wanted to interrogate Mr. Vadra in custody, alleging the “money chain” in the case was directly linked to him.
It had also claimed he was not cooperating in the investigation.
Mr. Vadra is facing allegations of money laundering in the purchase of a property in London at 12, Bryanston Square, estimated at 1.9 million pounds (over ₹17 crore). The case is being probed under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Mr. Vadra’s lawyer had rejected the ED’s allegations and said his client cooperated in the investigation and appeared before the probe agency whenever summoned.
The High Court was hearing the ED’s plea challenging the anticipatory bail granted to Mr. Vadra by a trial court on April 1, 2019.
Mr. Vadra had opposed the plea, saying there was not even a single instance of his non-cooperation. He said there was no risk of him tampering with evidence as the agency has already seized from him every document pertaining to the case.
The ED was conducting a “fishing and roving enquiry” and has no material to support the allegations made against him, he had claimed.
About the anti-money laundering agency’s claim that he was a flight risk, Mr. Vadra had said in his reply, “The conduct of the respondent (Mr. Vadra) in returning to India from abroad voluntarily upon reading press reports that ED was investigating him made it abundantly clear that Mr. Vadra had no intention whatsoever of fleeing the country and was determined to stay in India and clear the name.”
While granting anticipatory bail to Mr. Vadra, the trial court had directed him not to leave the country without prior permission and also to join the probe as and when called by the investigating officer.