Iqbal Mirchi’s Aide Denied Bail As Illness Not Life-Threatening: Mumbai Court

A special court in Mumbai, operating under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, has recently denied bail to Humayun Merchant, an alleged Iqbal Mirchi associate and a close aide of fugitive Dawood Ibrahim.

Merchant submitted a handwritten bail application citing medical grounds and seeking parity with another individual who was granted bail earlier this year.

Merchant was arrested on October 22, 2019, and has spent more than three years in prison.

Earlier, he also filed two pleas for temporary bail on medical grounds, which were rejected. However, both these times, he was either admitted to a private hospital or underwent a thorough check-up.

The Enforcement Directorate strongly opposed the bail application, emphasizing that Merchant generated, possessed, and utilized proceeds of crime related to offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which are categorized as Scheduled Offenses. The ED pointed out that the NDPS Act carries a punishment of rigorous imprisonment for up to 10 years, of which Merchant had not yet completed even half.

Special Judge MG Deshpande stated, “Even if he is 74 years old, his illnesses are not life-threatening and can be cured by proper medication, as done earlier.”

The court carefully examined the ED’s case and observed, “It appears that ED has clearly referred a number of instances to indicate how Merchant was a frontman for Iqbal Mirchi and an active participant having knowledge in the process of generating, placing, layering and integrating the proceeds of crime. It is the Merchant who had arranged several meetings of co-accused persons with Iqbal Mirchi at various places, e.g., London, Dubai etc. and accompanied them…Those meetings were for acquiring properties in order to project tainted monies as untainted. All this clearly indicates how Merchant had prominent role in various illegal activities of Iqbal Mirchi and how he assisted and participated in the same.”

The court also considered that Merchant previously appealed to the Bombay High Court after his bail was denied by the Sessions Court. However, his appeal was also rejected.

Judge Deshpande interpreted Merchant’s subsequent withdrawal of the bail plea at the Supreme Court as an acknowledgment of the finality of the high court’s decision.

Further, the judge noted that the high court recognized Merchant’s active participation in the crime when rejecting his bail plea.

Consequently, the court concluded that Merchant’s role in the offense was not comparable to that of the co-accused who was granted bail.