Delhi High Court Denies Arvind Kejriwal’s Request to Be Released from Judicial Custody

Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, filed a petition with the Delhi High Court on Tuesday, contesting his detention by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on charges of money laundering related to the now-cancelled Delhi Liquor Policy case. The motion was denied.

According to the court, the ED was able to present sufficient documentation, including the testimonies of Hawala traders, proving that funds were routed to the Goa elections.

Kejriwal’s attempt to have him arrested under the PMLA was denied by the court, which stated that “the files and material placed before us reveal that the ED followed the mandate of law.” There are two lines in the trial court’s order. AAP candidates running in the Goa elections as well as hawala traders have statements with ED.”


According to the court, casting doubt on the veracity of the approver’s declaration is tantamount to undermining the legal system. The court noted that the judicial court, not ED, was the one that pardoned approvers. Singhvi’s argument was dismissed by the court, which determined that the approver law is a 100-year-old statute.

The Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma bench stated that the court is not interested in politics and that its concerns are preserving constitutional morality rather than political morality.
The court dismissed Kejriwal’s motion but decided not to consider his claims that Raghav Magunta and his father gave money to the BJP in electoral bonds.

“Whoever gives tickets to contest elections to whom or who gives electoral bonds to whom is not for this court to see.”

In addition, the judge dismissed Kejriwal’s argument that he might have been questioned via video conference, stating that the accused should not determine the method of investigation. It can’t be to the accused’s convenience.

“There cannot be any specific privilege for anyone, including the Chief Minister,” remarked the magistrate.
Pursuant to this court, the accused has been taken into custody, and his arrest and remand should be reviewed in accordance with the law rather than the timing of an election.”

Following several heated arguments between Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing ED, the court on Wednesday reserved its decision.

Senior Attorney Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was representing Arvind Kejriwal in court, claimed that the detention was motivated by a plot to discredit him and destroy the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) before any votes were ever cast in the impending elections. Singhvi underscored the significance of the case in relation to a “level playing field.”

He claimed that the purpose of the arrest following the MCC was to degrade and ruin Kejriwal and the AAP. It is a component of fair and free elections, which are an element of democracy and its fundamental framework. The case is rife with timing mistakes. Before the first vote is cast, they are attempting to split and destroy his party. Will you accept your first summons on October 30, 2023, and be arrested right away?

According to him, the ED continued to record statements until Kejriwal’s name was omitted by the approver. He added that there can be no emergence of Section 70. It is relevant to an organization. AAP is classified as a political party by a separate statute.”In a desperate stretch, the ED argues on Section 70.” Said Singhvi.

Singhvi also mentioned the instance of Pankaj Bansal. He contended that if the PMLA’s Section 45 made bail challenging, it also made arrest challenging.”There are hidden reasons behind your arrest. The exam is not “arrest,” but rather the capacity to arrest, according to your power of arrest, Singhvi stated.

Regarding allegations of “non-cooperation” made by the ED against Kejriwal, Singhvi said that an admission of guilt and an arrest do not constitute “cooperation.”

He also drew attention to the “Extraordinary point” raised by the ED, which was, “The accused has lost since he stated in trial court that he had no objection to judicial custody. In this case, is it civil? How are they able to argue like that?

He charged that the ED had fabricated remarks made in support of Kejriwal. According to Singhvi, it is fraud under criminal law for the prosecution to withhold documents containing approvers’ exonerating remarks.

He claimed that until Kejriwal’s identity was withheld by the approver, the ED continued to record statements. In addition, he stated that Section 70 cannot exist at all. It is relevant to a business. AAP is a political party with a separate set of laws.” In a desperate stretch, the ED argues on Section 70.” stated Singhvi.

Speaking about “vicarious liability,” Singhvi stated that Kejriwal’s involvement in his personal capacity must be proven, even for a firm.

ASG SV Raju started off by claiming that Singhvi had already argued a writ plea, which is similar to a bail request, and that his arguments were out of date at this point. He claimed that most of the points have been presented as though chargesheets had been submitted.

“Some property has already been temporarily attached. The case is pending at Rs. 126 crore. We would like to attach AAP properties. Allegations that ke time aise Kiya will be made if we attach. Luckily, we are now in the inquiry stage. The investigation is still ongoing; it is just getting started.” said ASG SV Raju.

He claimed that since Kejriwal hasn’t contested the April 1 ruling that placed him in judicial custody, he won’t be able to be released today, even if this court rules in his favor. You cannot say it is illegal unless you contest the future directives.

“Kejriwal has challenged the first remand order, whereas his current judicial custody is based on the April 1 order,” he stated.
He went on to say that if we can prove you were involved in money laundering, it doesn’t matter if we locate the real proceeds of crime. “The claim is that it was not discovered by the ED from my residence. However, how will ED know if you have handed it to someone? He is both genuinely and vicariously concerned in the matter.” ASG Raju stated this at the Supreme Court.

Source By ABP Live via Dailyhunt