Delhi High Court (HC) on Wednesday heard Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the ED in the alleged liquor policy scam case. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma heard Arvind Kejriwal's bail hearing and reserved the order in the end. While Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Arvind Kejriwal via Video Conferencing, ED was represented by ASG SV Raju. Notably, Singhvi highlighted in its arguments how other accused were turned approvers and granted pardons after they took Arvind Kejriwal's name. On the other hand, ASG SV Raju informed the Delhi High Court that ED has evidence against Arvind Kejriwal including WhatsApp Chats, Income Tax return data, and even statements from Hawala operators. Below is how the arguments between Singhvi & Raju went in Delhi High Court-
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.
What was Abhishek Manu Singhvi's defense of Arvind Kejriwal?
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.