New Delhi :On the first day of hearing on Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by Enforcement Directorate in the Delhi liquor policy case, the Supreme Court posed three queries to his counsel: did Kejriwal move a bail application before the trial court; ED says he ignored its notices; and, Kejriwal says under Section 50 of PMLA, his statement was not recorded, but he never appeared for recording of Section 50 statement.
Senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, contended before a bench comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta that his client was arrested consequent to model code of conduct (MCC) being put in place, even though there was no "reason to believe" or "new" material with ED to take the action against him.
At the outset, Justice Khanna told Singhvi, “I am asking you factually, you did not move any application for bail (before the trial court)…I am not on, why you did not move, why you didn’t but as a matter of fact…..”. Singhvi said Kejriwal has not filed for bail and stressed that his arrest was illegal. Singhvi said that the arrest was illegal for violating Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and hence the writ petition, which challenges his arrest, deals with the wider import.
Singhvi said he is pressing for interim release of Kejriwal. He said there were enormous documents prior to his arrest but they did not connect Kejriwal with the alleged Delhi excise policy case, and also charge sheets (including supplementary) filed by CBI did not name him.
Singhvi the statement which formed the basis for the arrest of Kejriwal was recorded in July last year and they arrested him in March, 2024. “Arrested in March after the model code of conduct has come and he is put behind the bar…it is as if... arguing for immunity, who is arguing for immunity. Does the chief minister have less rights (than a common man) under sections 45 and 19 (of PMLA)”, argued Singhvi.
Singhvi stressed that Kejriwal was merely arrested on mere suspicion and no document (including FIRs, chargesheets, supplementary chargesheets, prosecution complaints, etc.) implicates him as an accused. He added that Kejriwal was not named in the CBI’s FIR or in the ED’s Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).
It was argued before the court that there was no material to arrest Kejriwal and non-cooperation can never be a ground for arrest.
The bench noted that Singhvi is saying that his client is not chargesheeted in any of matter, though FIR was registered on August 17, 2022 and the ECIR was registered on August 22, 2022 and also that most of the statements did not name Kejriwal, and statements between November 2022, and April 2023, said nothing against Kejriwal.