New Delhi: A division bench of the high court presided by Justices Siddharth Mridul and Talwant Singh adjourned the matter to October 9 in view of a similar matter pending before the Supreme Court.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Ghanshyam Upadhyay seeking transfer of the investigation from Delhi Police to NIA in the case lodged against Tablighi Jamaat leader Maulana Saad for holding a congregation of the organisation’s followers in alleged violation of the orders against large gatherings to contain the spread of coronavirus.
On the previous date of hearing, the Delhi Police had opposed the petition stating that the investigation is going on in a routine manner.
“The investigation is going in accordance with the law and is being handled by one premier department (Crime Branch),” Delhi government senior standing counsels Rahul Mehra and Chaitanya Gossain had submitted.
Mehra had also questioned the locus standi of the petitioner and argued that the petitioner is “not maintainable”.
The plea alleged, that “from media reports and evidence so far collected by Delhi Police Crime Branch, it is now axiomatic that Maulana Saad and his henchmen conspired to spread and transmit coronavirus in different parts of the country, with oblique and ulterior motive of causing massive deaths all over the country and thereby to derail the government of India in preventing the deadly disease.”
On March 31, the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police lodged an FIR against seven persons, including the cleric, on a complaint by Station House Officer of Nizamuddin police station here for holding a congregation of Tablighi Jamaat followers in alleged violation of the orders against large gatherings to contain the spread of coronavirus.
The Enforcement Directorate has also filed a money laundering case against Saad, trusts links to the Jamaat and others.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED), Crime Branch of Delhi Police and Income Tax (IT) department, are examining bank accounts operated by Jamaat chief Maulana Saad and his aides to figure out whether these transactions made by key players violated the integrity of banking and financial system because in several cases money received in one account was transferred to another account within 24 hours.