In a previous judgment in October, the high court had upheld Singh’s arrest and remand by the ED. He was apprehended on October 4, 2023, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). This arrest was linked to allegations of receiving ₹2 crore in connection with the now-scrapped 2021-22 Delhi excise policy.
The Delhi High Court’s recent proceedings in the high-profile Delhi excise policy case have brought significant attention to the bail plea of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Sanjay Singh. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, overseeing the case, has sought a response from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding Singh’s bail application, setting the stage for the next hearing on January 29.
Sanjay Singh, a prominent figure in Indian politics, was apprehended on October 4, 2023, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). This arrest was linked to allegations of receiving ₹2 crore in connection with the now-scrapped 2021-22 Delhi excise policy. The gravity of the case was underscored when a special court, on December 22, denied Singh’s bail, asserting there were reasonable grounds to believe his involvement with the “proceeds of crime.”
The special court’s ruling emphasized the absence of “irregularities” or “illegalities” in Singh’s arrest and remand. It noted that being named in the First Information Report (FIR) or charged in the main excise policy case was not a prerequisite for being accused.
In a strategic legal move, Singh, through his advocate Rajat Bharadwaj, challenged this decision. He argued that the allegation of ₹2 crore being paid to his associate was not part of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s chargesheet, thereby questioning its classification as proceeds of crime under the PMLA. The plea stressed that the ED had not provided sufficient evidence or incriminating information to link Singh to any activities related to the placement, layering, or integration of proceeds of crime, thus challenging the applicability of PMLA provisions in his case.
Also read-“No Hope, Better To Die In Jail”: Jet Airways Founder To Court (lawchakra.in)
Representing Singh, Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur raised concerns about the basis of Singh’s arrest, which he claimed was reliant on the inconsistent statements of ED’s “star witness” Dinesh Arora. Mathur argued,
“The only evidence against the Applicant [Singh] is the belated and procured statement of Dinesh Arora.”
He criticized the ED for not presenting any substantial material collected during the investigation to support its case against Singh.
In a previous judgment in October, the high court had upheld Singh’s arrest and remand by the ED. Justice Sharma, in her ruling, had remarked,
“Even if the investigating agency/ED is a premier investigating agency, they cannot be expected to work as magicians and even if with the aid of technology and best investigative skills at their best are to be applied, it will still take time to investigate the case and try to reach the truth.”
This statement highlighted the complexities involved in the investigation and the need for time to uncover the facts.
Following the high court’s decision, Singh escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, challenging his arrest. The Supreme Court, in November, sought responses from the government and ED. It also instructed the special court to consider Singh’s plea for regular bail independently of the observations made in the high court’s judgment.
This case has become a focal point in Indian politics, especially for the AAP, with Singh being the third party leader arrested in this matter. The ongoing legal battle in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court’s pending decision on Singh’s petition are closely watched, as they hold significant implications for India’s political dynamics and the enforcement of anti-money laundering laws.
Also read-“Wherever Dawood Is…”: Delhi Lawyer On Why He Is Buying Dawood Property (lawchakra.in)
