New Delhi [India]: The Enforcement Directorate has started interrogating former Central Bureau of Investigation judge Sudhir Parmar in a money laundering case linked to a corruption case registered by the Haryana anti-corruption bureau (ACB) against him and an additional session judge-rank judicial officer.
Parmar, who was arrested on Thursday, was sent to six-day ED custody by a special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court in Chandigarh on Friday, soon after he was produced before it after his arrest in the money laundering case.
Parmar, suspended on April 27, after being booked on April 17, has been accused of alleged favouritism in his treatment of real estate developers Roop Bansal and his brother Basant Bansal of M3M and Lalit Goyal of IREO Group, according to an FIR filed by the ACB.
The Bansal brothers, Goyal and nephew of a judicial officer, Ajay Parmar, were also arrested by the ED earlier.
Suspended Panchkula special court judge, Parmar, was arrested by the ED as part of a money laundering investigation against him linked to charges of alleged bribery.
The former judge was taken into custody under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) from Gurugram in Haryana.
The ED had started PMLA investigations after registering an enforcement case information report (ECIR) on June 13. The ECIR was based on the April 17 first information report (FIR) registered by ACB under sections 7, 8, 11, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for offences relating to a public servant being bribed, a public servant taking undue advantage, criminal misconduct by a public servant, and criminal conspiracy.
The ACB FIR, on whose basis the ED also registered the ECIR, was lodged on the basis of “reliable source information”, WhatsApp chats, and audio recordings of the accused, which allegedly disclosed instances of grave misconduct, abuse of official position, and demand and acceptance of undue advantage from the accused in cases pending in Parmar’s court.
According to ED officials, the ACB FIR stated that “as per reliable information, instances of grave misconduct, abuse of official position, and demand and acceptance of undue advantage and bribe from the accused persons in the cases pending in his court were observed (in the judge case)”.
