Arrest was ‘malicious’: AAP MP Sanjay Singh to HC, seeks immediate release from custody
In his plea, Singh has also sought his release "forthwith" from custody. He was arrested on October 4; he was remanded to five-day day ED custody on October 5, which was extended till October 13 on October 10. Subsequently, on October 13, Singh was sent to 14-day judicial custody.
2 min read
AAP MP Sanjay Singh being taken to the Rouse Avenue Court by the Enforcement Directorate officials in connection with the Delhi excise policy case, in New Delhi, Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2023. (PTI Photo) AAP MP Sanjay Singh told the Delhi High Court Tuesday that his arrest was “malicious”, “flouting the procedure” laid down while arguing his plea against the arrest and remand in the money laundering case related to alleged irregularities in the now scrapped Delhi excise policy.
In his plea, Singh has also sought his release “forthwith” from custody. He was arrested on October 4; he was remanded to five-day day ED custody on October 5, which was extended till October 13 on October 10. Subsequently, on October 13, Singh was sent to 14-day judicial custody.
Appearing for Singh, senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari submitted before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma that his arrest was illegal and a “classic case of abuse and perversion of power”, therefore, the remand order should be set aside.
Highlighting approver Dinesh Arora’s statements to ED and CBI, Chaudhari said, “After a total of 13 statements (to ED and CBI), Arora suddenly makes a statement naming me (Singh).”
Calling Singh a “key conspirator” in the case, the ED in its remand application had said that he is “closely associated with a number of accused/suspects”, including Arora.
The ED has claimed that Singh conspired with other persons, and proceeds of crime of at least Rs 2 crore were generated wherein he played a role in its “generation, transfer and concealment” and projected the amount as “untainted”.
Chaudhari said that the “necessity” of his client’s arrest was not mentioned in the grounds of arrest, especially when his client had not been served even a single notice nor had been questioned even once. “In the present case, the grounds of arrest are a formality, a pretence, subterfuge, empty formality and camouflage validating a totally invalid action,” he stated.
The HC will hear the matter on October 19 when the ED will begin arguments.
You May Like
