Breaking : CBI Court Remands D K Shivakumar To ED Custody Till Sep 13

Mr Shivakumar was arrested on September 3, on alleged offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The Enforcement Directorate was represented by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj who submitted that further custody of Mr Shivakumar is required to confront him with the questions regarding the documents and cash recovered from his house during a raid by the Income Tax Department of Karnataka. It was further argued that Mr Shivakumar needs to be further interrogated as there's enough evidence to show that he's both the holder and distributor of proceeds of crime.

While making his submissions, the ASG also submitted that Mr Shivakumar has been non-cooperative and evasive during interrogation. He needs to be interrogated on the questions of some shell companies and the unjustifiable growth in the assets of his family. It was also alleged that he conspired with certain government servants of Karnataka to illegally enrich himself.

Mr Shivakumar was represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi who simultaneously filed two applications - one opposing the remand, and the second for bail. He made the following submissions before the court:

1. Investigation Officer did not apply his mind as he did not make the actual remand application
2. The IT raid which is the foundation of the remand application pertains to offences mentioned under section 276, 277 and 278 which are all compoundable offences. Moreover, a High Court order of 20/08/18 stayed any further proceedings in the case pertaining to the complaint filed under the impugned income tax raid. These provisions do not even in the list of scheduled offences under PMLA
3. ED wants the accused to confess guilt during interrogation. That's why his answers which are protected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution are termed as evasive by ED. Custodial interrogation cannot mean confession.
4. Bail is the rule, arrest is the exception. The present case doesn't involve any suppression of evidence or flight risk so as to warrant a police custody
5. The case diary has not been filed despite it being required under the law

Countering Mr Singhvi's arguments, ASG mentioned that the High Court order has nothing to do with the present case which is being filed for provisions under PMLA. He asked for a time period of 7 days to reply to the bail application.