Gadling, appearing in person, meanwhile made submissions opposing the plea.
He contended that allegations made against him did not involve PMLA.
“Mere registration of scheduled offence did not give power to ED to invoke PMLA. This will happen in every case where there is scheduled offence”, Gadling contended.
His secondary contention was that the multiple chargesheets, which the courts had taken cognizance of, did not make any mention of the proceeds of crime.
“Your chargesheet on predicate offence does not talk of proceeds of crime. When predicate offence chargesheet is silent can you proceed on proceeds of crime?” Gadling said.
It was also his argument that the prosecution agencies were trying to trap him in a fresh case after it was highlighted through report by Arsenal, a US based agency, that the electronic evidence against him in the case was planted on his devices.
“In 2018, when the Bombay High Court granted default bail in the Bhima Koregaon case, another case was slapped against me in Gadchiroli. Now after the Arsenal has come up with a report on my harddisk, the ED has slapped a case on me, to keep me in custody. This is a harassment technique and I may be protected”, Gadling said.