Delhi excise policy: HC seeks ED’s response on Sanjay Singh’s plea challenging his arrest

“It is not only important to protect my liberty, but also to set a precedent as to what is happening immediately after October 3 when the SC had given a milestone judgment in Pankaj Bansal’s case,” Chaudhari said.

Chaudhari submitted that the CBI first registered its FIR in the excise policy case on August 17, 2022, and till date, the agency has not called his client for any investigation.

He further submitted that the ED also registered its Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on August 22, 2022; In one year and two months, no summons, or notice under Section 50 PMLA has been issued to his client “even till today”, he said.

“Not a single time was I called for any inquiry or investigation. Suddenly on October 4, they came to my house in the morning with a purported search authorisation and carried it out. They (ED) took some innocuous items like mobile phone, nothing that was incriminating. At 5.25 pm, without ever being called, I was arrested straightaway,” Chaudhari said.

Challenging Singh’s procedure of arrest, he pointed to Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), arguing that “an officer will not arrest a person unless he has already got material in his possession on the basis of which he will record reasons in writing that the person who is being arrested is guilty”.

On the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in M3M directors Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal’s case, Chaudhari said, “The SC said in this judgment the ED is a premier investigating agency of the country and its attitude and action must be couched in fairness… the SC said the ED can’t be vindictive while carrying out investigations. Despite this sage counsel by the SC, they appear to continue to indulge in what they believe to be correct.”