ED implicated me in ‘false concocted story’, arrest absolutely illegal: Arvind Kejriwal to Delhi High Court

Kejriwal was arrested on March 21 by the ED in a money-laundering case linked to the now-scrapped excise policy. On June 25, the Delhi High Court stayed a trial court order granting him bail in the ED case. He is presently in judicial custody in the ED and the CBI cases pertaining to the excise policy.

Kejriwal said, “Liberty is a sacrosanct constitutional value and the Courts of this country are duty bound to act as sentinel to protect Citizens Liberty against the wrath of State sceptre. The incarceration of the Respondent (Kejriwal) in the present matter is nothing but gross abuse of process of law. Enforcement Directorate has implicated the Respondent in a false and concocted story, no case is made out against the Respondent and the arrest in the instant matter is absolutely illegal. There are reasonable grounds believing that Respondent is not guilty of any offences which are alleged by the Petitioner (ED).”

The CM further said that “discretionary orders of bail” as the one granted by the trial court, cannot be set aside merely on “perceptions and fanciful imagination” of the prosecution.

Opposing the ED’s argument that ‘irrelevant materials have been considered’ by the trial court in its bail order, the CM said that the same will not only tantamount to dictating the court about the “course to be adopted but also demonstrate an element of arrogance that has crept in the mind of this particular investigating agency”.

The AAP leader said the trial court’s order granting bail was not only “well reasoned” but prima facie showed a due application of mind in “considering” and “faithfully recording” and dealing with relevant arguments and contentions raised by both parties.

The chief minister said canceling the bail order would be tantamount to a “grave miscarriage of justice.” He added that he is a “respectable citizen” and there was no occasion for him to violate any terms or conditions that have been imposed upon him. Kejriwal said the ED’s argument that it was not given a proper opportunity for hearing is to be “dealt with sternly” by the high court.

“If bail matters are allowed to be continued to be argued for hours and days together, it would not only render the criminal justice system unworkable but also render justice illusory for many under trials and convicts who languish in jail for want of hearing or decision on their bail applications. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has drawn timeline for decision on bail applications and a bail matter which has practically been heard for two days continuously while affording approximately 4 times more opportunity of hearing to the prosecution than the accused, the Court certainly cannot be blamed for non-affording of a proper opportunity,” the reply stated.

The reply further submitted that during the hearing on the stay application before the HC, ED chose to produce media reporting” regarding the trial court proceedings concerning the hearing of the CM’s bail plea.

It stated, “Significantly, the ED adopts varying and contradictory standards as per its convenience. In other cases where such proceedings reported in media were brought before the Court, it has been a vehement objection of the ED that the same cannot be relied upon. However, in a holier than thou attitude, the ED chose to produce the media reporting of the proceedings before the Special Judge. However, even the media reports would lay bare the hollowness of the ED’s contention of lack of proper opportunity. Merely because Court had regulated and controlled the manner of proceedings or asking the ED’s counsel to be brief can by no stretch of imagination be construed that an opportunity of hearing was curtailed. All the submissions made by ED are not only untenable in law but also reflect their apathy, insensitivity and overbearing as well as over- reaching attitude towards Courts of law.”

The reply further stated, “With utmost respect, the language employed by the ED in the grounds urged before this Hon’ble Court (HC) insofar as the Ld. Special Judge is concerned, ought to be frowned upon by this Hon’ble Court and strictures deserve to be cast as such kind of remarks and insinuations will not only be detrimental to the cause of justice but would also render our District Judiciary to be demoralized”.

He further said that while he was in ED Custody from March 22 to April 1 “nothing specific/relevant with the ongoing investigation” was investigated by the Investigating Officer (IO) and the arrest was illegally made “just to harass and humiliate a political opponent”.

The reply states that there is “no material” in ED’s possession based on which his further incarceration can be justified, adding that the probe agency has failed to bring on record even a “shred” of evidence/document/material that would make the HC believe to the contrary.

Kejriwal also said that there is “no criminal wrongdoing” on his part in the matter and there is no material to show his involvement in the process or activity related to Proceeds of Crime (POC) — “be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so”.

Kejriwal further said that the trial court, while granting bail, had dealt with the aspect of twin conditions (under Section 45 PMLA) “elaborately,” taking into account the long-winding submissions from both sides.

“First 15 pages of the order were devoted to the contentions of both the sides and reasoning occurring thereafter is well balanced which considers all aspects of the matter…,” the reply stated.

Opposing the ED’s reliance on statements made by “co-accused” about him in the case, the CM said, “That the Respondent (Kejriwal) is victim of witch-hunt and Standard Modus Operandi adopted by Enforcement Directorate to implicate it’s given targets wherein the Enforcement Directorate uses illegal measures of pressurizing the other co-accused and inducing them to make incriminating statement in lieu of “no-objection” by ED to the grant of bail of such co-accused.”