New Delhi: A Delhi court Friday sent Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to six days’ custody of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the excise policy case.
The central agency sought custody for 10 days after producing the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief before Special CBI Judge Kaveri Baweja at the Rouse Avenue Court, but she granted custody till 28 March.
Kejriwal was arrested by the federal probe agency Thursday evening after its investigating officers carried out searches at his official residence.
Kejriwal joins his colleagues Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and Vijay Nair who were previously arrested by the agency in the case.
The case pertains to alleged irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the excise policy for the year 2021-22. On the recommendation of the Delhi LG V.K. Saxena, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had lodged an FIR in July 2022 naming then deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia as an accused.
Taking cognisance of the CBI FIR, the ED lodged a case and started probing alleged cartel formation, payment of kickbacks and money laundering.
Earlier Friday, Kejriwal moved the Supreme Court challenging his arrest but withdrew the writ petition before a three-judge special bench could hear the matter.
Last week, the agency had arrested K. Kavitha, BRS MLC and daughter of former Telangana chief minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao.
Arguing for the ED, Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju said that Kejriwal was the “kingpin” and “key conspirator” of the excise policy who designed policy changes to suit people who agreed to pay kickbacks, and was involved in recoupment of the proceeds of crime.
ASG Raju said Kejriwal directly sought Rs 100 crore as kickbacks from the “South Group” that comprises arrested BRS leader K Kavitha, YSRCP MP Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy, his son Raghav Srinavasulu Reddy and the director of Aurobindo Pharma P. Sharath Reddy.
ASG Raju further said that Kejriwal has dual liability in this case as he was both individually involved in the generation of proceeds of crime and as well as “vicariously” as he was the national convener of the AAP which was the ultimate beneficiary of the proceeds of crime.
He further argued that the proceeds of crime produced in this case was not limited to Rs 100 crore which was paid to AAP by the “South Group”, rather approximately Rs 600 crore based on profits made by the firms and individuals who paid bribes for favourable changes in the policy.
Challenging the argument made by ASG Raju, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi contended that the agency had relied only on the statements of persons made co-accused, some of whom had turned approvers.
Singhvi further argued that nearly 80 percent of the witnesses whose statements were recorded had not taken Kejriwal’s name, nor had they mentioned any dealings with Kejriwal.
“Powers under Section 50 are misused in a malicious manner and people are coerced, forced and pressured to give unsubstantiated statements in the present matter,” Singhvi argued in court, opposing the remand application moved by the agency.
He further said: “The statements of co-accused are obtained by ED in lieu of being lenient and not opposing grant of bail under Section 45 PMLA to said private accused persons. Hence, in a grave abuse of process, ED traded in persons’ liberty and bartered personal liberty with statements of co-accused against the arrestee and other persons. The same is done wantonly, unabashedly, openly and also publically advertising such barter of personal liberty to other co-accused persons to avail liberty by towing line.”
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)