ED’s hidden agenda to implicate me in another false case to prevent release: Elgaar accused Surendra Gadling

The ED had, last month, sought the special court’s permission to record Gadling’s statement in connection with a money laundering case filed by the agency last year, claiming that he was a “prime suspect” in a case where funds were allegedly collected for banned organisation CPI (Maoist). The court on Wednesday allowed the ED plea, stating that whether or not there were proceeds of crime as claimed by the agency was a matter of investigation. Gadling will be interrogated and his statement recorded over three days, between August 17 and 19, in Taloja Central Jail, where he is lodged.

Gadling raised questions about the timing of the ED complaint filed last year, claiming that it was filed only after an independent forensic firm based in the US, Arsenal Consulting, had said in a report that evidence was planted in the devices of the accused in the Elgaar Parishad case. “They knew I was likely to get out the moment the Arsenal report is submitted and it is found that documents were planted. It is a simple ploy to keep me behind bars as long as possible,” Gadling said. He said that the charges invoked against him in the Elgaar Parishad case include sections pertaining to proceeds of terrorism. He claimed that no proof was present in the chargesheets against him on this aspect.

A petition filed by Gadling’s co-accused Rona Wilson before Bombay High Court on the report is yet to be heard.

Gadling submitted to the court that his house was raided by the Pune police in 2018 during its investigation in the Elgaar Parishad case. He claimed that “not a single rupee” was found in the raid. He further claimed that while the ED, in its plea, had alleged that he had used a bank account and SIM card under fictitious names, the NIA, which is probing the Elgaar Parishad case, has made no such claims in the chargesheets filed against him.

“The ED is doing a fishing inquiry, it is a harassment technique. When the predicate offence (the Elgaar Parishad case) is silent on the proceeds of crime, how can they (ED) come with such a plea? In their application, they are making a false statement. Nowhere in the chargesheets filed by the NIA has it been alleged that I have used a bank account or a SIM card in a fictitious name. The ED’s statement is contradictory to the NIA chargesheet,” Gadling said.

In its plea, the ED has said that Gadling is an active member of the banned organisation and was involved in the raising and disbursement of funds for “violent activities”.

Special public prosecutor Sunil Gonsalves submitted that the ED was not seeking Gadling’s custody but wanted to record his statement as per provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The complaint under PMLA was filed against Gadling and others in March last year. This is the first time that the agency has sought to question Gadling. His lawyer, while arguing against the ED plea, sought that the agency be asked to point out its investigation in the past year to show proof that he has any proceeds of crime with him.

“While ECIR (ED complaint) is registered a year ago, it was deliberately not disclosed. There is nothing to show (for) the investigation they have done in the last one year,” Gadling submitted.

The court said that since the ED has filed a complaint, Gadling’s statement can be taken.