ED raids in U.P., Mumbai in religious conversion 'racket' case against Chhangur Baba
At least 14 premises, including 12 in Balrampur district and two in Mumbai, are being searched under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), they said.
The raids were launched around 5 a.m., along with a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) team, which was there to provide security cover to the ED officials.
The federal probe agency recently filed a case to probe the activities and financial details of Jalaluddin alias Chhangur Baba, alleged to be a mastermind of an illegal religious conversion racket operating in Uttar Pradesh.
Jalaluddin hails from Balrampur district, and his real name is Karimulla Shah.
Jalaluddin, his son Mehboob and associates Naveen alias Jamaluddin and Neetu alias Nasreen were arrested by the U.P. Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) recently, and they are currently lodged in jail.
Earlier, the ED said that Jalaluddin amassed funds worth about ₹106 crore, mostly from the Middle East, in 40 bank accounts linked to him and his associates.
They alleged that Jalaluddin had established an "extensive network" that was operating from the premises of the 'Chand Auliya Dargah' in Balrampur where he regularly organised "large" gatherings attended by both Indian and foreign nationals.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Probe agencies can't summon lawyers: AG; CJI says 'ED officers crossing all limits'
Supreme Court (File photo) NEW DELHI: Admitting that ED erred in summoning senior advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal for rendering legal opinions to clients in a laundering case, attorney general R Venkataramani Monday told Supreme Court that all probe agencies have been asked not to commit this mistake in future. 'We'll frame guidelines in this regard,' AG told a bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran while it was hearing a suo motu case regarding the summons, which were later withdrawn. 'ED officers are crossing all limits. They must know that under law, communication between a lawyer and his client is a privileged communication,' Gavai said. If a lawyer is involved in crime, law will take its own course: CJI However, if a lawyer is involved in a crime, law will take its own course,' CJI Gavai said. SC would take up petitions filed by various bar associations on July 29 to attempt to lay down comprehensive guidelines in this regard, he added. On the joint pleas of SCBA president Vikas Singh, SC Advocates-on-Record president Vipin Nair, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Vijay Hansaria, the CJI-led bench said it would frame guidelines for agencies and bar them from summoning advocates for legal opinion or advice rendered to clients facing prosecution. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo While agreeing with AG, solicitor general Tushar Mehta pointed out another malady afflicting some in the legal professions. "It is equally wrong on the part of advocates, who appear for or advise a client, to create a planned narrative in favour of their client and against the probe agency through social media before and after filing of a petition in a court. Lawyers must stick to their duty of presenting the case before the court,' he said. Mehta said, "The communication between a lawyer and his client is no doubt privileged and which must be immune from investigation, But would a lawyer's action in creating a narrative for his client outside the court also enjoy the status of a privileged communication? Would it not amount to an attempt to influence the public and judiciary about a case?' CJI Gavai asked, 'Have you ever found a judgment or order of a court getting swayed or influenced by such narratives spun by lawyers outside the court? We go by facts and submissions in the courtroom and do not even watch or read what the lawyers speak outside the courtroom about the case.' Mehta said the issuance of summons to Datar was brought to the notice of the 'highest executive' and within six hours a circular was issued by the ED barring its officers from issuing summons to any advocate. Singh, Nair and Hansaria said issuance of summons to advocates by probe agencies would have a chilling effect on the independence of the legal profession.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
In Mumbai train blasts case, many questions: LeT or IM, household utensils or pressure cookers?
MUMBAI: The 2006 train blasts case remains controversial due to the claims of the Maharashtra ATS that the blasts were carried out by SIMI with the support of LeT while a subsequent claim two years later by the Mumbai crime branch said it was the handiwork of an Indian Mujaheeddin module which it had busted. In court, the ATS chargesheet only mentioned household utensils were used in the blasts, and the use of pressure cookers surfaced only during the trial. The ATS theory that pressure cookers were used also raised some questions since the shopkeeper from where eight of these were purchased was not called for a test identification parade and no sketches of the suspect were prepared and circulated based on his description. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai Besides recovery of some pressure cookers and related accessories at the instance of the accused, there is no mention of these in his statement, according to the Bombay high court judgment acquitting the accused. Another accused mentioned the use of RDX and timers for the blasts, but there was no mention of pressure cooker. In 2008, the crime branch, headed by Rakesh Maria, arrested Sadiq Shaikh, an alleged member of the IM, for the Delhi and Ahmedabad blasts, along with others. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 15 most beautiful women in the world Shaikh allegedly told officials of the crime branch that the IM was responsible for all the blasts, including the train blasts. The trial court while convicting the accused rejected the defence claim of IM module involvement. An investigation by the Delhi police's special cell, alongside the interrogation of Yasin Bhatkal of th IM, too had found that the train bombings were carried out by IM operatives. The IM had claimed responsibility for the Mumbai blasts along with three other strikes in an email sent to media houses in Nov 2007, said sources. The Delhi police even came on record to state this after the arrest of IM's shadowy co-founder, Abdul Subhan Qureshi, also known as Tauqeer, on Jan 20, 2018. Tauqeer was the one who used to sign off as 'al-Arabi' on the emails sent by the IM after every blast. The Delhi police said both Yasin Bhatkal and Shaikh disclosed the role of Atif Amin, who went to Mumbai specifically for this task along with other members who were later found at Batla House in Delhi in 2008. The module, comprising Shaikh, Amin, and Bhatkal, met once again in Mumbai at a McDonald's restaurant in Andheri before the Ahmedabad blasts, an officer said. "The use of pressure cooker bombs was another IM signature style at the time," he said. In Mumbai, though, some senior police officers said the LeT claim by the ATS and the differing, IM claim by the crime branch may have been a case of one-upmanship. After the train blast, the then Mumbai police commissioner A N Roy stated at a press conference that bombs were planted in pressure cookers and were the handiwork of LeT. At the time — Vilasrao Deshmukh was the Maharashtra chief minister and R R Patil the deputy chief minister, who also held the home portfolio — the Mumbai crime branch was not connected to the case, but after the 2008 blast in Ahmedabad, a suspicious vehicle stolen from the Mumbai region became part of the case when it was found parked outside a civil hospital in Ahmedabad. Through CCTV footage, the vehicle thief, Afzal Usmani was traced and it was found that he had stolen four vehicles from Navi Mumbai which were used in the blast in Ahmedabad. It led to the arrest of Shaikh and his other IM group members. Shaikh had claimed that he, along with Riyaz Bhatkal, Arif Badruddin Shaikh, Amin, Shahnawaz, with the help of other members, carried out the blasts on the instruction of Amir Raza at Mominpura in Delhi, Sankatmochan Mandir in Varanasi, on the Shramjeevi Express, and on Mumbai train from Feb 2005 to Sept 2008. He had claimed in his initial statement that Raza sent explosives and materials for this purpose with help from Riyaz Bhatkal or his men, while Arif Badar prepared the clock timer circuit. He, Badar, Bhatkal and Amin knew how to prepare bombs and circuits. The trial court found the statements "vague".
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
IAS officer Udit Prakash Rai, kin got Rs nearly 5 crore in ‘kickbacks' in Delhi Jal Board case: ED
The Enforcement Directorate's investigation into a money laundering case involving IAS officer Udit Prakash Rai has claimed that nearly Rs 5 crore was allegedly routed to his account and that of his mother-in-law from six firms. The alleged transactions took place during his tenure as CEO of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB), when he is accused of favouring a firm in a tender process, it is learnt. Last May, the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) of the Delhi government had booked the six firms and government officials on charges of corruption in the case. The ED had filed an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, in the same case. Rai could not be contacted despite repeated attempts. The investigating agency wrote to the ACB earlier this month, mentioning a 'maze of complex transactions made by the firms'. The letter, signed by the Assistant Director, Delhi Zonal Officer-I, said that based on the ACB FIR dated May 11, 2024, registered under sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC against the six firms — M/s Eurotech Environmental Pvt. Ltd; M/s Ayyapa Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd; M/S Khilari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd; M/s GSJ Envo Limited; M/s Shubhash Infraengineers Pvt. Ltd; M/s Dineshchandra R Agrawal Infracon Pvt. Ltd — and other unknown government officials/public servants/private persons etc, an ECIR dated May 13, 2024, was recorded by the ED. The letter claimed that during the probe, it was 'revealed' that Rai, when posted as Chief Executive Officer of the DJB, had awarded a tender to various contractors. 'However, the terms and conditions of the tender were restrictive, which resulted in favouring one technology provider — M/s Eurotech Environmental Pvt Ltd. Investigation revealed that funds to the tune of Rs 1.52 crore were received in the bank accounts of Rai and his mother-in-law… from a proprietary firm, AN Enterprises (Prop. Nagendra Yadav), which were transferred through a maze of complex transactions starting from M/s Eurotech Environmental Private Limited (a technology provider company in the said tender) and its related entities,' the letter claimed. Further, during the investigation, the letter alleged certain transactions were found where M/s Eurotech Environmental Pvt Ltd and Director of M/s Ayyappa Infra Project Pvt Ltd Satish Varma paid Rs 4.82 crore (including Rs 1.52 crore mentioned earlier to Nagendra Yadav and his associates in the form of commission etc.) The ED also shared a note containing details of these transactions. The Indian Express emailed five firms named in the note but did not receive a response. Senior officials in the ACB stated that sanctions for prosecuting some people under Section 17A have been sought. 'We received the letter from the ED and are investigating the matter,' an ACB official said. 'While sanctions have been issued for some individuals, approvals for others are still pending. Our investigation had earlier revealed that some firms were favoured,' the official further added.
