Delhi liquor policy case: HC reserves judgment on Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest

Singhvi referred to the cases of Raghav Magunta and Sarath Reddy and submitted that they bail only after they made statements against Kejriwal. He further alleged that these persons had not made statements against Kejriwal initially and the ED has classified such statements as unreliable. According to Singhvi “This is reprehensible conduct by a prosecution agency which claims to be fair.”

The senior advocate further stated there have been no new developments in the excise policy case after SC’s judgment in the Manish Sisodia case and thus Kejriwal had been arrested at the time of the elections deliberately.

ED's arguments:

Appearing for the ED, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju contended that the plea was not maintainable as Kejriwal has himself not objected to his remand being extended.

He said, “The fact that an offence of money laundering has taken place is clear and beyond any doubt.” According to Raju, the proof of the money laundering is in the order of courts rejecting bail petitions of Kejriwal's co-accused. Raju said, "If a bail is rejected it means that there is a prima facie case of money laundering against that accused."

The ASG further contended that the existence of a liquor scam and payment of kickbacks is a fact that has been upheld till the Supreme Court. He said, "No matter what you argue, it is clear that there was a scam and the government exchequer suffered a loss because of that”.

According to the ASG, Kejriwal's lawyers were citing the elections after his arrest, however, the scam took place much before he was arrested. He said " The fact that liquor policy was manipulated to give profits and receive kickbacks happened long back. The election is only being used as a bogey. It is not as if ED has become active now."

The ASG argued that persons accused of crimes cannot cite elections to escape from arrest. Raju said "Take a case of a terrorist who is a politician? He has blown up an army vehicle. Can he say he cannot be arrested because he wants to contest the election ?"

Singhvi vehemently objected to Raju comparing a sitting CM to a terrorist bombing an army vehicle.

Raju contended that it was not necessary to find proceeds of crime to arrest a person who has been accused of money laundering, he noted that many times these proceeds are taken out of the country or spent elsewhere. However, a person cannot wriggle out of the crime by stating proceeds of the crime were not found.

On March 27, on the first day the case was listed, the Delhi HC  refused to grant an interim relief to Kejriwal and posted the case for final hearing on April 3. Kejriwal had urged the Delhi High Court to order his immediate release from ED custody, contending his arrest on the cusp of elections was against the basic structure of the Constitution as it denies a level playing field in the elections.

Kejriwal's arrest

On March 21, hours after the Delhi High Court refused to protect Kejriwal from arrest, the ED arrested him in the Delhi liquor policy case. Though the Delhi CM moved the Supreme Court challenging his arrest, he withdrew it after deciding to challenge his remand by the ED.

A day later, a Delhi court remanded Kejriwal to ED custody till March 28. On March 28, he was remanded to ED custody again till April 1. ED contended that Kejriwal did not turn up for enquiry when summonses were issued to him and was also non-cooperative, thus sought for his remand.