In a massive development, Delhi Chief Minister & AAP National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal's petition challenging his arrest was dismissed by the High Court on Tuesday. Delhi High Court had reserved its verdict on the petition filed by Delhi CM's counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi in the alleged liquor policy case. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had heard Arvind Kejriwal's bail hearing. The AAP Supremo was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 21 and was sent to the central agency's remand till April 1. Then, the Rouse Avenue Court sent Kejriwal to judicial custody until April 15, 2024. Following that the Delhi CM was lodged in Tihar Jail in barrack number 2. Below is what the Delhi High Court said while announcing its verdict-
The Delhi HC clarified that the petition filed by Kejriwal was not of bail but the legality around his arrest by the ED. In its verdict, Delhi High Court said, "This court would clarify that the plea isn’t for bail, it is to prove if his arrest was illegal & in contravention to the SC judgment in case of Pankaj Bansal Court states the issues which it has considered. Whether the CM was entitled to release."
This court is of the opinion, amongst several statements, that the statements of Mr. Reddy and Raghav (approvers) have been termed as unreliable...Court says doubting grant of pardon to Approvers amounts to casting aspersions on Judicial process.
The law of approver is more than 100 years old. It is not a one-year-old law to suggest as if it was enacted to falsely implicate the petitioner. On the question of nonsupply of documents and earlier statements (of approvers), I've said that you're entitled to inspect documents at the appropriate stage of the trial. However, this is not the stage."
'No specific privilege even for a Chief Minister'
"The contention that Kejriwal could have been questioned through VC is to be rejected. It is not for the accused to decide how the investigation is to be done. It cannot be as per the convenience of the Accused. This court won't set two sets of laws- One for the commons and the other for the public servants. There cannot be any specific privilege for anyone including the Chief Minister," said the Delhi HC.
The court further observed that "the material collected by the ED reveals that Mr Arvind Kejriwal conspired with others. The ED case also reveals that he was involved in his personal capacity as well as convenor of AAP. Granting pardon to approver is not under ED's domain and is a judicial process. If you cast aspersions on the process of pardon...you're casting aspersions on the judge."
'Non-joining of Kejriwal was a contributory factor to his arrest' says Delhi HC
"The question on non supply of documents — court states that he would be entitled to the same at the stage of section 207 CrPC, the stage which has not come yet..MS reddy & Sarath Reddy have given their statement out of free will. This court cannot step into the shoes of trial court & conduct a mini trial...ED was in possession of enough material which had led them to arrest the accused. Delay caused by Kejriwal also impacted those who were in custody. Non-joining of Kejriwal was a contributory factor & not the only factor.”
Delhi High Court on timing of Arvind Kejriwal's arrest
During the hearing, ED had alleged that it had digital proof including WhatsApp chats and confessions of Hawal operators who were allegedly used to siphon off the money received as a kickback to the AAP during the Goa Elections.
ASG Raju appearing for ED said, "They say you didn't arrest Buchhi Babu, that's why his witness can't be relied upon ... We have WhatsApp chats, we have hawala operators statements. It's not as if we are shooting in the dark. We have a large amount of Income Tax data...Just because some witness has not named you does not mean the statement is exculpatory. I am learning this criminal law for the first time."
"All large payments which were given to the vendors of the AAP campaign were paid in cash and the same were not accounted for in the books of accounts," added Raju.
Arvind Kejriwal's defense
In response, Arvind Kejriwal's counsel Singhvi had said, "Singhvi said, "I want to forward 7-8 points which I said on the last date of hearing. The first of those points is the importance of the case in terms of a level playing field. A level playing field is not just a phrase, it has three components. One, it is part of free and fair elections which in turn is part of democracy and basic structure. This case reeks of timing issues...So that the petitioner is unable to participate in the election process and to try to demolish the party before the first vote is cast. ..The timing reeks of basic structure issue, free and fair election issue and democracy issue. What is this urgency or necessity? I am not talking politics. I'm talking law. "
"My second point is of no material in any manner supporting under section 50 of PMLA. The date of first summons is 30 October 2023. The ninth summons in 16 March. Between these dates, six months or so passed, you're clearly doing an arrest without any inquiry, statement, material, etc which can form the basis of arrest. It's unique that there is no section 50 at all," added Singhvi.