You did not go to ED, so how can you say that statement was not taken? Supreme Court asked difficult questions to Kejriwal – arvind kejriwal ed arrest case what happened in hearing in supreme court

New Delhi : During the hearing on the petition of Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, arrested on charges of money laundering related to Delhi Excise Policy, the Supreme Court asked why you did not file the bail application? Kejriwal has challenged his arrest and remand in the Supreme Court and said that the arrest is illegal. Also said that the statement on the basis of which the arrest was made was taken one and a half years ago and he was arrested after the implementation of the code of conduct, even though there is no evidence against him.

Kejriwal’s arrest itself is illegal
Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared on behalf of Kejriwal before the bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna. During this, the Supreme Court asked that you did not file bail before the trial court? Then Singhvi said that the bail application was not filed. The court asked why the bail application was not filed on his behalf? Singhani said that there were many reasons for this and one of those reasons was that Kejriwal’s arrest is illegal and it is a violation of Section 19 of the PMLA Act. The hearing will continue on Tuesday also.

Singhvi’s question on timing of arrest
Singhvi said that the statement on the basis of which the arrest was made took place between December 2022 and July 2023. The arrest took place on March 21, 2024. Singhvi taunted by raising the question whether the ED had left the convicted Chief Minister free to roam around. Kejriwal was arrested after the implementation of the code of conduct for the Lok Sabha elections. There was no new material in this case.

Reddy, who made the statement, bought electoral bonds for the ruling party
Sighvi argued that there was no need for Kejriwal’s arrest. No FIR, charge sheet, supplementary charge sheet or prosecution complaint has been filed in this case. Kejriwal’s name is not in the CBI FIR. Also, Kejriwal’s name is not in ED’s ECIR. He has been arrested on the basis of his statement under Section 50 of PMLA. Singhvi said that Raghav Magunta, Buchi Babu, Sharad Reddy etc. had not taken the name of Kejriwal. Reddy did not take the name of Kejriwal in his 9 statements. Rather the ED arrested him on the basis of the 10th statement. Reddy bought electoral bonds for the ruling party BJP. The court is required to see whether there were sufficient reasons for the arrest. Singhvi said that no one said anything in 15 statements and the 16th statement was taken from someone who was in custody, he was made an approver and he was granted bail. Kejriwal’s application for interim relief was in the Delhi High Court. The High Court not giving relief on that does not mean that ED has got grounds for arrest.

Non-cooperation in summons cannot be a basis for arrest
Kejriwal’s lawyer also argued that the right to arrest does not mean that arrest is necessary. Singhvi said that Kejriwal had gone when CBI had called him for questioning. Justice Khanna said that ED gave you notice but you ignored it. On this Singhvi said that the ED notice was replied to. Non-cooperation on summons cannot be a ground for arrest. It is Kejriwal’s right to go or not. A separate case can be registered for this, but it cannot be the basis for arrest. Singhvi referred to the judgment of Pankaj Bansal, in which ED will have to tell the ground of arrest.