The Enforcement Directorate (ED) was acting with bias against Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) founder Arvind Kejriwal, who was booked in the excise policy case, the Delhi court observed on June 20 while granting him bail. The court’s order was then put on hold by the Delhi High Court on June 21.
The trial court had said that ED had failed to give any direct evidence linking Mr. Kejriwal with the proceeds of the crime.
It also came down heavily on the ED’s arguments that investigation was an art, “....because if it is so, then, any person can be implicated and kept behind the bars by artistically procuring the material against him after artistically avoiding/withdrawing exculpatory material from the record. This very scenario constrains the court to draw an inference against the investigating agency that it is not acting without bias,” the court said.
The court’s statements came on the arguments made by the ED, through Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, in which the agency had said that an approver cannot be discredited for the reason that he had been given an inducement in respect of bail or pardon. The agency added that “investigation is an art and sometimes, an accused is given lollipop in the face of some assurance of relief so that truth can be surfaced”.
Arvind Kejriwal | The prophet of probity
Special Judge Niyay Bindu of the Rouse Avenue Court also said that the Central agency remained silent on the fact that Mr. Kejriwal was not named by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in its first information report (FIR) or in the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered by the ED.
The court noted that the allegations against the Delhi Chief Minister surfaced only in the subsequent statements of certain co-accused. It noted that Mr. Kejriwal had not been summoned by the court to date but was lying in judicial custody on the insistence of the ED on the pretext that the investigation was still on.
“ED has not shown anything on record that Vijay Nair was acting upon the directions of the applicant. It has also failed to establish that even if Vinod Chauhan has close relations with Charanpreet, how come the same going to help ED to establish the guilt of the applicant, even if, the applicant is having acquaintance with both of these co-accused,” the court noted.
‘No link to proceeds of crime’
Mr. Nair was allegedly an AAP worker, while Mr. Chauhan and Charanpreet Singh were named as accused in the excise policy case.
It further said that the ED had also failed to clarify how it concluded that the ₹1 crore attached from Mr. Chauhan was part of the proceeds of the crime. “ED is also not clarifying as to how the alleged amount of ₹40 crore being traced out during the investigation is forming a part of the proceeds of the crime. It seems that ED also believes that the evidence on record is not sufficient to proceed against the applicant and it is taking time to procure the same in any manner whatsoever to convince the court with respect to the availability of the evidence against the applicant,” the court said.
Watch | What was the New Delhi Excise Policy all about, and why is Arvind Kejriwal in trouble?
It noted that the ED should be prompt and fair so that it can be perceived that the principles of natural justice were also being followed by the agency.
Bail under PMLA
Commenting on the delayed bail in cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the court noted that it became impossible for the accused to obtain bail in such cases as the investigating agency gave its own reasons, putting the accused on par with a convict without any hope of release.
“The situation becomes more grave if later on, the accused comes out to be innocent and the agony he has underwent remains unexplained,” the court had said while granting bail to Mr. Kejriwal.
Mr. Kejriwal, earlier this month, had filed two bail applications in the Rouse Avenue Court. One was for relief of seven days for treatment, which was denied on June 5. The second application was for regular bail, which was granted on June 20.
Case history
The case against Mr. Kejriwal was based on the FIR initially filed by the CBI on the complaint of the Lieutenant-Governor of Delhi alleging multiple irregularities in Delhi excise policy-2021-22, which was subsequently withdrawn by the State.
After the CBI case, the ED filed a case under the PMLA, alleging that the money earned through the excise policy was diverted through “hawala” channels to be spent on the AAP’s campaign in Goa ahead of the Assembly elections there in 2022.
Over the past two years, the CBI and ED have arrested many people, including former deputy Chief Minister of Delhi Manish Sisodia, AAP’s Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh and Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K. Kavitha. While Ms. Kavitha and Mr. Sisodia were languishing in jail, Mr. Singh was granted bail earlier this year.
The ED had alleged that Mr. Kejriwal was the ‘kingpin’ of the excise policy scam.
