In a major setback to the AAP supremo, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the arrest of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a money laundering case linked to the excise policy ‘scam’.
Meanwhile, Kejriwal is likely to be produced before a Delhi court on Thursday on the conclusion of his ED custodial remand on March 28.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice on the AAP leader’s petition challenging his arrest and the subsequent remand to the ED’s custody, and asked the agency to file its response to it as well as his plea for interim relief of release before April 2.
The judge, in the order, clarified the matter would be taken up for final disposal on April 3 and no adjournment shall be granted.
“This court deems it appropriate to issue notice of the main writ petition as well as application for grant of interim relief, returnable on 03.04.2024,” the court said.
“Further, any release order from custody will amount to enlarging the accused/petitioner on bail or interim bail, as an interim measure. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a ready substitute for recourse to the remedy of bail under Section 439 of the CrPC ordinarily.
“…the relief sought in prayer (C) in the main petition is dependent on the outcome of prayer (A) and (B).
“Therefore, any order passed in the application for interim release of petitioner, pending disposal of the main petition without calling for reply of the respondent, at this stage, would rather amount to deciding the main petition itself.
“This court remains conscious of the fact that to reach a conclusion as to whether the petitioner herein is entitled to immediate release or not, this court will necessarily have to decide the issues raised in the main petition, as those issues are the edifice of arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner seeking immediate release of the petitioner,” ordered the court.
“The ED will ensure that replies are filed to the main petition as well as the application for interim release of the petitioner by 02.04.2024 and copies of the same are provided in digitised form as well as hard copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner,” the order said.
The order said, “This court is further of the opinion that the present petition raises several issues of legality and validity regarding the arrest and remand of the petitioner. Additionally, it questions whether the arrest may be politically motivated and malafide. There are also serious concerns which have been raised by Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, which relate to Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 19 of PMLA, as well as the validity of the statement of an approver.|”
“The necessity and timing of the arrest of the petitioner and the motive behind it has also been argued at length by Singhvi. He has also raised serious and critical questions before this court that this court being a constitutional court must apply its mind to the motive behind the arrest which is patently illegal and has a direct bearing on the democratic process of impending elections in the country”.
“In this court’s opinion, such important questions and issues cannot be summarily heard and decided, by giving opportunity to only one party to file petition, documents, short note of arguments and compilation of judgments relied upon by them, especially when copy of the petition was provided to the ED yesterday itself, and the short note of arguments and compilation of judgments relied upon by them were provided to the court as well as the learned ASG during the hearing itself. It will be unfair to not give an opportunity to the ED to rebut the same by way of filing of a detailed response,” it said.
“This court also cannot presume that the respondent will have no reply to file and will remain bound only by the contentions raised before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, since there may be some additional material in the possession of the investigating agency, collected during the custodial interrogation of the petitioner herein, which they may wish to place before this court, which may be crucial to decide the present case. Such material may also be crucial for the petitioner himself,” read the order.
Earlier, Senior Advocate Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal in the Delhi High Court, contended the arrest of a sitting Chief Minister on the cusp of elections was against the basic structure of the Constitution.
“Object of the arrest was not to find material but to disable me and my party. My prayer is, release me now,” he argued.
Singhvi also argued that it is a delaying tactic which is reflective of malicious intent on the part of Directorate of Enforcement to stall or delay any order being passed on the release of the petitioner herein.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the ED, said the “bulky” petition was served upon them only on Tuesday, and time should be given to bring their stand on record. For interim relief as well, appropriate time should be given to respond, he said.
