Leader Online Desk : A hearing was held in the Delhi High Court today (April 3) on the plea filed against Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's arrest in the Delhi liquor policy scam case. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of Kejriwal and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju on behalf of ED made strong arguments. Following this, single bench judge Swarnakanta Sharma has reserved his decision.
The timing of Kejriwal's arrest is doubtful
Singhvi said that the timing of the arrest of Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal is suspicious. Because Kejriwal has been arrested after the implementation of Model Code of Conduct.” ED has made no attempt to record Kejriwal's statement under Section 50 even at his residence.
Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict On Arvind Kejriwal's Plea Challenging ED Arrest In Liquor Policy Case | @nupur_0111 #ArvindKejriwal #EnforcementDirectorate https://t.co/yaaThvJweu
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) April 3, 2024
Arrested Kejriwal only for insulting: Adv Singhvi
Singhvi said that every time Kejriwal has given a written reply to the summons issued by the ED. The ED should be repeatedly asked what is the basis of their arrest, what is the need for it. What reasons necessitated the arrest? If you have the power to arrest an investigation suspect, you can arrest him just for insulting Kejriwal.
Kejriwal has given a detailed reply to ED's summons seven to eight times. They have given their answers without asking any questions. Do you think Kejriwal will abscond? You have recorded their statements asking whether they can influence the witnesses after one and a half to two years. There are thousands of pages of documents. There is talk of cooperation in the investigation. On which occasions did Kejriwal not cooperate? He said in his remand application that the ED will further find out what was Kejriwal's role in the whole conspiracy. This cannot be a basis for arrest, Singhvi also said at this time.
Six months have passed since the summons issued by ED in this case. It has been one and a half years since the crime was filed. It is very unfortunate that criminal laws have been imposed on Arvind Kejriwal. Many of the statements contained nothing against Kejriwal. Earlier there were Raghava Reddy, Mungatta Reddy and Sharath Reddy. Some were arrested after this. After this he testified for the first time against Kejriwal. After this, he was granted bail on the grounds of back pain. Singhvi also said that ED did not take any action on this.
They are making a mockery of the law…
Mungata made a statement against Kejriwal and was granted bail 10 days later. They are mocking the law. This statement was contrary to his earlier statements. Now his father is part of the ruling party alliance. He is a candidate in the election from the ruling party. Mungata donated to BJP through electoral bonds. This is complete prejudice. Mungata gave 4 statements, 3 of which contained nothing against Kejriwal. These were not brought forward. Singhvi said this is completely wrong and a violation of criminal law.
Wrong copies of petition sent to us : SV Raju
Arguing on behalf of the ED, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju said that we have not been provided with the correct copy of the petition. The matter will be heard tomorrow. How do I respond based on incorrect copy? Singhvi clarified that. One copy has error, new copy handed over to ED. To this, ASG Raju said, the point is that we were sent wrong copies and this should not have happened.
ED's opposition to argument by more than one counsel
SV Raju on behalf of ED objected to senior advocate Amit Desai also representing Kejriwal during the hearing. Two lawyers cannot argue in one case. No one is entitled to more than one attorney. More than one lawyer cannot address. You may be rich, you may claim to be an Aam Aadmi but two lawyers cannot argue on your behalf.
The investigation is not over yet – ED's bold logic
Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju said that it was argued by the petitioner that this was not a petition to quash the arrest but a bail application. The investigation into the matter is at an early stage. Opposing the petition challenging Kejriwal's arrest, the ED has said that the investigation in the case involving Kejriwal has not been completed.
No order of remand has been challenged. I am also not sure whether they can challenge these orders as they say I am accepting remand. You cannot challenge remand unilaterally. On the other hand, I cannot say that I accept the remand, said S. V. Raju mentioned.
It is true that there was a scam in the Delhi liquor policy case
Many of the accused in this case have been denied bail by the Sessions Court, one of the reasons for denying bail is the involvement of money laundering against the accused in this case, said S. V. Raju said. It is true that there was a scam in the Delhi liquor policy case. Indo Spirit was granted a wholesale license despite complaints of 'cartelisation'. The complainant was forced to withdraw the complaint. He also told the court why the 5 percent profit became 12 percent.
There are many cases where bodies are not found…
If we make a case that you were involved in money laundering, it is irrelevant to find out the actual amount of the crime. You claim that nothing was recovered from the house when the ED raided it; But if you have given it to someone, how will you get that item in the house?, he also claimed to Raju. There are many cases where bodies are not found; But there are also trials and convictions. This does not mean that there was no murder.
… What basic structure is this? What kind of argument is this?
I am Chief Minister, can't go to jail. So I will plunder the country, make money, take bribes; But don't touch me. why Because the basic structure has been violated even before the election. What basic structure is this? Take the case of a terrorist who is a politician. who blew up an army vehicle; But he says I want to stand for election, you can't touch me. Suppose a politician commits a murder two days before an election. Does that mean he can't be arrested? Does the basic structure come true? Criminals are to be arrested and jailed. In such cases the basic structure is not violated. I kill or rape but I can't get arrested before elections. What a trick this is. This is a bogus argument. Solicitor General S. V. Raju did.
Raju: Supposing a political person commits murder two days before elections. This means he can't be arrested? Basic structure comes into play? Criminals are supposed to be arrested and put in jail. In such cases there is no infringement of basic structure. I commit murder or rape…
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) April 3, 2024
The entire case is prima facie money laundering. Several accused have been found guilty of money laundering with intent to deny bail. Today we will not cross the stage of Section 45 PMLA as this is not a bail application, he added.
There is no dispute as to the reason given for Kejriwal's arrest. Also there is no dispute regarding the fact that it was produced before the court within 24 hours.
There is no dispute that he was produced before the court within 24 hours. It is also not in dispute that he was given a reason for his arrest. He also requested Justice Swarnakanta Sharma to please look into my remand application and the order passed by the court.
Do you mean that the magistrates also put pressure on the witnesses?
You say ED pressured. But what about the magistrate? Do you mean that the magistrates also put pressure on the witnesses? The action taken in this case is also not mechanical. He also claimed that the order of arrest was given after a complete observation.
This does not mean that the crime of money laundering has not been committed
The proceeds of this scam were paid in cash to a large number of individuals. This cash is not in the books of accounts. AAP's candidate has also accepted this. I have been given cash. So we have discovered the money trail. The fact that the money is not found does not mean that the crime of money laundering has not been committed. The petitioner has been making false statements in this matter since the beginning. He also said that he is guilty because of that. This petition deserves to be dismissed. There are not many decisions on this matter. That is fairness. They expect us to be fair. He also appealed to me to see his impartiality which I have shown.
We have presented evidence that money from the Delhi liquor policy scam was used for the election campaign of the Aam Aadmi Party in Goa. The beneficiary was you. He also claimed that 'AAP' has committed the crime.
Kejriwal responsible for his affairs: 'ED'
You may not be a company but if you are an association of persons you will be considered a company. Aam Aadmi Party is an organization of individuals. Aam Aadmi Party is a company under Section 70 of PMLA. A political party is an association of individuals. So we have established that he (Kejriwal) was in charge and responsible for the affairs of 'AAP'. Kejriwal was taking all the final decisions. He is the National Coordinator of the party. So they are responsible for all its affairs. The company has committed a crime, you are responsible for the events. Kejriwal was responsible for his affairs when bribes were taken and money laundering was done. More than one person may be responsible for the affairs of the company. He also clarified that if we have evidence tomorrow, we will also accuse others.
Adv of 'ED' allegations. Rebuttal by Singhvi
Refuting the allegations leveled by ED, Kejriwal's lawyer Singhvi said that everything was done for a reason. It is said. Arresting Kejriwal under Article 19 is a challenge. By misclassifying something you are trying to make it ineffective.
Why was Kejriwal arrested in the middle of the election?
There is no evidence of money laundering against Kejriwal. ED's lawyers claim that this scam was exposed long ago; so I am asking myself why Kejriwal was arrested now, in the middle of elections? That makes my point, not ED's. Don't tell everything according to ED instructions. There has to be some balance. A person holding the post of Chief Minister should be arrested during elections. But is this a correct analogy?, he also asked. After this, the court reserved the order of the court in this case.
