While opposing the bail plea of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal at Rouse Avenue Court on Wednesday, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that the demand of Rs 100 crore bribes is established.
We have established that the money went through hawala. The co-accused, Chanpreet Singh, who took the money, has established it, said the ED.
The ED also said that a large chunk of money was paid to AAP in cash. Money was paid for a 7-star hotel stay for Kejriwal by Chanpreet Singh, which is also established, ED added.
It is the case of CBI that he demanded a bribe for the AAP, ASG SV Raju for ED argued.
After hearing the part submissions of ED, the court adjourned the matter for hearing the further submissions tomorrow.
Vacation Judge Nyay Bindu of Rouse Avenue Court has listed the matter for tomorrow at 10 a.m.
The court is dealing with the regular bail application of Arvind Kejriwal.
Senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari argued for Kejriwal. He submitted that Kejriwal was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court.
Chaudhari argued that Kejriwal is not an accused in a scheduled offence. He has not been listed as an accused in the charge sheet and supplementary charge sheets filed by the CBI.
He also submitted that I (Kejriwal) am not claiming any special treatment as a CM but if a constitutional functionary has been called by the agency, my chair ought to be respected, the senior advocate argued.
The senior advocate submitted that he has challenged his arrest before the Supreme Court, was granted interim bail and surrendered after the expiration of the interim bail period.
He also raised objections about the timing of the arrest of Kejriwal by the ED.
“I (Kejriwal) have been in custody since March 21. Statements of witness were with the agency. The last statistic was recorded in August 2023. In October 2023, I was called by the agency, Chaudhari argued.
“I (Kejriwal) was arrested by the ED in March 2021. They could arrest me in November, December but why in March?” he questioned.
The conduct of ED is deprolable. He was arrested in March for weakening the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) before the general election, Kejriwal’s counsel said.
He is a mass popular leader, but I (Kejriwal) am not claiming any special status. If this could happen to a person holding a constitutional post, then what would happen to an ordinary man, senior counsel argued.
Kejriwal’s counsel once again pressed the point that he is not an accused in the CBI case. But he has been arrested in ED’s case.
It was also submitted that ED’s case was entirely based on the statements of approvers and circumstantial evidence.
The court asked how many approvers there are in this case. Senior Advocate Chaudhari said there are three approvers in this case.
Chaudhari said that the evidence is weak. He added that there are contradictions in the evidence.
The money trail is not established. Chaudhari referred to the statement of Magunta Reddy.
Chaudhari referred to the statement of Magunta Reddy and submitted that when Raghav Magunta was asked specifically about Kejriwal, he had said that he did not meet me in connection with excise policy. However, later on, he made a statement regarding Kejriwal, and thereafter, Raghav Magunta got interim bail. Later, he was granted pardon as well.
Chaudhari further argued that there is no evidence, like a camera recording or money as such, that has been exchanged. These are all in the form of statements.
“I will not be surprised if some more statements come to fill in the lacunae. This investigation is unending, it will continue till eternity. It is the biggest instrument of oppression,” Senior advocate argued.
The question is, how will my lord view the arrest of a sitting CM in a case that was going on for a year and a half before the arrest? Chaudhari added.
Sr. Advocate Chaudhari concluded by saying that Kejriwal was arrested before the election. Evidence against him is circumstantial. The statements given by the tainted persons. He has certain medical ailments.
While opposing the bail application, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S. V. Raju said that the CBI’s investigation shows that Kejriwal asked for a bribe of Rs. 100 crore.
He also submitted that, at the time, Manish Sisodia, AAP, was not made an accused. This time, AAP has also been accused. The bail pleas of many accused have been dismissed.
Now the AAP has also been made an accused in this case. It is established that a bribe was paid. Kejriwal is the national convenor of AAP; therefore, he is liable for its conduct.
ASG referred to the remand order of K Kavitha. The court asked how this order is relevant in this matter
ASG said that it is relevant to show the role of Arvind Kejriwal. This shows that Kejriwal asked for funds for the party.
The court asked whether the Cognizance has been taken against the Kejriwal ASG and said that it was kept for order on July 9.
The court said that it requires a copy of the order for reference. The court said that the approver’s statement is not of much value, the accused is holding a constitutional post and he is not a habitual offender.
ASG Raju said that for granting bail in PMLA case, there should be reason to believe that he is not guilty of the PMLA offence.
It is a mandatory condition under PMLA. Whether he holds a constitutional post or is a CM is not important. It is important that whether the offence is made out or not, ASG argued.
ASG said that offence of money laundering can be committed by a person who is not an accused in the scheduled offence.
ASG argued that the time of arrest is irrelevant. His role has been demonstrated by the CBI. Whether he was accused or not, that is not relevant.
ASG also submitted that timing is irrelevant, if the offence is made out. Arresting is prerogative of the IO.
Defence counsel has not argued that the accused is guilty of offence of Money laundering or not
ASG also submitted that the further investigation by CBI has shown his role. To say he has no role is false.
ASG argued that Kejriwal was granted limited interim bail for campaign only. He was directed not to go the Delhi Secretariat.
It was not regular interim bail, it was a limited interim bail for limited purpose, ASG argued.
ASG referred to the High Court order dismissing Kejriwal’s plea against his arrest and remand.
ASG also submitted that approvers are made with the permission of court. The entire purpose is to induce a statement against a co-accused.
He said that some time is required to file written submissions
The judge said that I will not reserve it for any other day. Everyone knows that it is a high profile matter. If I have to pass an order, I will pass it tomorrow.
ASG said that Kejriwal is roped in not only in individual capacity but also for vicarious liability under section 70 of PMLA
ASG said that Arvind Kejriwal demanded a bribe of Rs. 100 crores. How can you say that he is not guilty of offences money laundering.
He also said that Vijay Nair was media incharge of AAP and was organising meeting with liquor lobby and asking to pay bribe. He said if you give us bribe, we will change the policy.
He was living in a government bunglow, despite the fact that he was not a government official. He was close to Arvind Kejriwal.
ASG also submitted that Arvind Kejriwal is responsible for the conduct of AAP. He is the national convenor of the party. Therefore, he is the incharge of the party.
(This news report is published from a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has not been written or edited by OpIndia staff)
