‘Over 170 mobile phones, money trail destroyed’: In Supreme Court, ED counters Kejriwal’s plea against arrest in Delhi excise policy case

The agency said that the arrest of a person, “however high he may be”, for commission of offence based on material can never violate the concept of free and fair elections. In its affidavit, the ED said if it is accepted that such arrest will violate the concept of free and fair polls, “politicians who are criminals would be granted immunity from arrest on the ground that he is required to canvass in the election”.

It said, “Treating a politician differently from an ordinary criminal…would amount to arbitrary and irrational exercise of power of arrest, which would violate the

principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution”. The agency said that Kejriwal was arrested because the investigating officer is in possession of material as required under section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act “which would indicate his guilt of the offence of money laundering punishable” under the Act.

The ED said that Kejriwal “was avoiding interrogation by not remaining present before the investigating officer despite being summoned nine times. Even on the date of the search… he was…being evasive and totally non co-operative even with respect to simple non-incriminating questions”.

The probe agency said the investigation of the “Liquor Scam” has to be seen in the background of “large-scale destruction of evidence.” “A total of over 170 approx mobile phones were changed/destroyed by 36 persons (accused and other persons involved)…In this manner, the crucial digital evidences…money trail have been actively destroyed…” the affidavit said, adding that “despite such active and criminal destruction of evidence, the agency has been able to recover key evidences which directly reveals the role of the petitioner in process and activities relating to proceeds of crime”.

The agency said that “under the old excise policy, no wholesaler had an incentive to give a bribe to the Aam Aadmi Party, the old policy therefore required a change to facilitate the reimbursement of the wholesale license holder for the bribe taken from the wholesaler.”

The agency further said, “For making such changes, a new policy was required…he (Kejriwal) therefore was instrumental in formulating such a new policy which inter atia allowed 12% margin to a wholesaler. This exorbitant margin was to compensate the bribe givers…”