ED Withheld Materials Favoring Kejriwal, Witness Statements Extracted Through Coercion & Inducement: Singhvi To Supreme Court

While arguing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Delhi Liquor Policy case, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi on Tuesday (April 30) accused the agency of withholding materials favoring Kejriwal and questioned the circumstances under which the statements claimed to be inculpatory were recorded.The matter was being heard by a Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta. For a detailed report on the case background and earlier proceedings, click here.Today's proceedings were centred on Singhvi arguing certain legal points and taking the court through witnesses' statements. He submitted that the ED did not produce before Court the statements of its star witnesses which exculpated Kejriwal and the same are concealed as "unrelied upon documents".Singhvi on witnesses' statementsPrimarily, Singhvi took the court through the statements of 5 persons - Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy (MSR), MSR's son Magunta Raghava Reddy, P Sarath Chandra Reddy, Buchi Babu and C Arvind. His contentions regarding each are summarized below:♦ MSR: He is an erstwhile Member of Parliament from YSR Congress, forced to make statement against Kejriwal in lieu of his son Raghava Reddy's bail. His first statement was recorded in March, 2023, but the same was ignored by ED. Owing to his son's continued incarceration, MSR finally broke down after 5 months and gave statement implicating Kejriwal on 16-17 July, 2023. A day after this statement, Raghava Reddy, who was arrested on February 11, 2023, was granted interim bail on ED's no-objection.Further, the statement is entirely hearsay, as MSR says K Kavitha (BRS leader) told him something, he told the same to his son, and then his son met Kavitha. There is not a word about Kejriwal or anything to invoke Section 3 PMLA.♦ Raghava Reddy (MSR's son): He made 5 statements (1 before arrest and 4 after arrest) in which Kejriwal is not implicated, but the same have been suppressed by ED. He was arrested on February 11 and granted interim bail on July 18, 2023 after his father (MSR) made statement implicating Kejriwal. Raghava followed his father's footsteps due to mental trauma and made a statement against Kejriwal on 26-27 July, 2023, whereafter his bail was made absolute (on August 10, 2023).ED opposed Raghava's bail plea when his wife tried to commit suicide as well as appealed against the grant of interim bail to him when his grandmother was in ICU. However, later when he implicated Kejriwal, the agency gave no-objection. In October, 2023, Raghava was infact granted pardon and is now contesting as a candidate in Lok Sabha elections himself.There is no case under Section 3 PMLA based on his statements.♦ Sarath Reddy: He made 11 statements not implicating Kejriwal (2 before arrest and 9 after arrest), but they have been concealed and suppressed by ED. The statements made by him on April 25 and 29 (2023) are contrary to the statements made before arrest on September 9 and 16 (2022).After 9 days of giving statements implicating Kejriwal in April, 2023, he was granted bail on medical ground - for back pain. Ultimately, pardon was also granted.ED opposed his bail plea when it was sought in relation to his wife's cancer treatment, but not when he sought the relief for his own back pain.The statement stated to be implicating is an "innuendo" and lacks specificity (dates, address).He purchased Electoral Bonds for the ruling BJP government through company Aurobindo Pharma, after his arrest.♦ Buchi Babu: His statement is complete hearsay and cannot be accepted as relevant. It was given in CBI custody, to escape ED arrest. He is the only member of South group who has not been arrested by ED despite being accused in CBI case.♦ C Arvind: His statement does not connect Kejriwal to proceeds of crime. If a person states that a file was given to a Minister in presence of Chief Minister, it is not enough to implicate the Chief Minister under Section 3 PMLA.Singhvi also mentioned a 6th person in the context of Goa elections. ED's allegation, as per grounds of arrest, is that an AAP candidate received cash from an AAP volunteer for Goa elections. Singhvi averred that no offense under Section 3 PMLA is made out based on this. There is no mention of Kejriwal and receiving/not receiving of cash is at best an income tax offense.After taking the court through the statements, Singhvi pled that they did not make out a case under Section 3 PMLA. Moreover, they were a result of inducements and pressures, as pointed out during the arguments. He urged the court to "read between the lines" as a "farce was going on" insofar as approvership was concerned.The senior counsel also raised the issue of Vijay Nair being used to connect Kejriwal to the Delhi Liquor Policy case (as if the two are alter ego) by saying: "Vijay Nair on behalf of Arvind Kejriwal received kickbacks to the tune of 100 crores for a group? They have given definition of south group. How...

ED Withheld Materials Favoring Kejriwal, Witness Statements Extracted Through Coercion & Inducement: Singhvi To Supreme Court

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

ED Withheld Materials Favoring Kejriwal, Witness Statements Extracted Through Coercion & Inducement: Singhvi To Supreme Court

Debby Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers