ED appears to have availed pick and choose strategy with the witness too: Court

The Special PMLA court which granted bail to Sanjay Raut and his close aide Pravin Raut on Wednesday saying their arrest was illegal and the Enforcement Directorate has availed a pick and chose strategy has raised questions about two star witnessesmdashSwapna Patkar and Chandan KelekarThe court said Patkar once a close family friend of Raut should also have been made an accused She has claimed that Sanjay Raut purchased properties in his wifersquos name in Alibaug with the proceeds of crime generated through the R 1034crore Patra Chawl scamThe court said the statement of Patkar who had also claimed that Raut had been threatening her to take back her statement given to ED An FIR against Raut regarding this was registered at Vakola police station before his arrest by ED on July 31Statements variedThe court noted that ED recorded Patkarrsquos statement five times In her first statement recorded in September 2019 she had claimed that she paid Rs 50 lakh to Sanjay Raut for the registration of a plot in Alibaug The court noted that she specifically mentioned that she was not aware of the market value of the property but it might be around R10 crore She said that she had never met the land owner and all negotiations were done by her husband Sujit Patkar and Sanjay Raut She only went to sign at the Registration OfficeIn her third statement recorded in December 2021 she said that Sujit Patkar was coordinating with all the land owners for cash He was handling cash on behalf of Sanjay Raut The court noted that in one of questions asked by the ED about the sources of money to her husband she said that only he could explain ldquowhich deviated from her earlier statement wherein she states that Sujit Patkar was handling cash on behalf of Sanjay Rautrdquo the court saidAlso Read Patra Chawl case Arrest of Sanjay Raut illegal says PMLA courtThe court said the EDrsquos case is that monies received by Sanjay Raut and his wife Varsha were invested in land at Kihim Alibaug For that Sanjay Raut allegedly threatened the land owners and compelled them to sell their landplots to him and Sujit Patkar Their contention is based on the statements of witnesses including Swapna Patkar She had stated that when she met land owner Shridhar Edekar he told her he was threatened to sell his land Therefore prima facie it is clear that it is not her first hand knowledge of this fact but based on hearsaylsquoED knowsrsquoldquoWe are constrained to note that ASG Mr Anil Singh prosecution lawyer while arguing the case vehemently referred the word ldquoWhosoeverrdquo in Sec3 of the PMLA Act and contended how the case of Sanjay Raut falls under the said caption having dealt with Proceeds of Crime POC If the same parameter is applied to the case of Swapna Patkar she as the recipient of alleged POC and purchased landplot for herself and her husband at the instance of Sanjay Raut would be equally liable under Sec3 of the PML Act Astonishingly regarding her also the ED appears to have availed pick and choose strategy for the reasons best known to them Prima facie it is evident that ED had done the same with her as they did with Rakesh and Sarang Wadhawan and allowed Swapna Patkar to go scotnotfree for reasons best known to the EDrdquo the court said in its order in the Patra Chawl caseThe court has said that there are various contradictions in Patkarrsquos statements which were being ignored by ED The order also points to contradictions in Sujit Patkarrsquos statements The court noted that ED framed several questions to the Patkars to ensure that they took the name of Sanjay Raut so somewhere he was involved in cash transactions for the registration of the propertiesAs per the bail order of Sanjay Raut the court said that the ED case is that the properties in Alibaug were purchased by Sanjay Raut below market rate by threatening the sellers However the court through the statement of sellers noticed that the plots were purchased long ago at the prevailing market rateldquoWe have also noted how the ED has not arraigned Swapna Patkar as accused nor arrested her when their own allegations in the complaint and materials available through her statements primafacie demonstrate that she had dealt with POC with alleged knowledge thereofrdquo the court saidWhat meetingsAbout prime witness Chandan Kelekar who was the architect of the project the court said itrsquos very strange that ED has relied on a private witness who claimed two important meetings were held by the then Union home agriculture minister and the then chief minister of Maharashtra in 2007 These meetings in which Sanjay Raut was present were to discuss Patra Chawl redevelopment after which he was allegedly involved with the projectThe court said that all this prima facie demonstrates that statement of Chandan Kelekar is the sole basis on which Sanjay Raut is connected and fastened to the Siddharth Nagar Project where Patra Chawl isQuestioning further EDrsquos reliance on Kelekar the court said that after ldquocareful examination of whole documents and statements it is prima facie evident that Chandan Kelekar who is not a government official but allegedly participated in those meetings states about them with minute details out of his photographic memoryrdquoldquoThe ED has not recorded statements of the MHADA and government officers present in the said meetings There is no official record which is bound to be preserved by the office of the Chief Minister regarding the suggestions given by Vilasrao Deshmukh the then Chief Minister of the said meetings as stated by Chandan Kelekarrdquo the court order reads furtherThe court also found it very strange that while ED recorded Kelekarrsquos first statement in September 2021 he didnrsquot say a word about the two meetings until after the first charge sheet was filed against Pravin Raut