Yesterday (March 28th) , Rouse Avenue Court extended the Enforcement Directorate’s custody of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal until April 1. The court stated that the agency had provided adequate reasons, including the necessity to confront him with collected material and recorded statements, justifying his continued custodial interrogation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Special Judge Kaveri Baweja extensively reviewed the submissions and arguments presented by both the investigative agency and the defense in the case involving Chief Minister Kejriwal. The court found compelling reasons to authorize extended custodial interrogation of Kejriwal, emphasizing the necessity for him to be confronted with the accumulated evidence and witness statements obtained during the investigation.
This decision was notably influenced by the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) argument that Kejriwal needed to be challenged with information retrieved from digital devices among other evidentiary materials.
In its fresh remand plea before the Rouse Avenue court, the federal probe agency said Kejriwal’s statements were recorded over five days but he was “evasive” in his response.
Judge Baweja, in her ruling, underscored the ED’s request for an extension of custodial interrogation to allow for a more thorough and sustained questioning process, leading to the extension of Kejriwal’s ED custody until April 1.
“Having considered the submission made before this court and considering the grounds as cited by the investigative agency, there appears to be sufficient reasons to permit further custodial interrogation, particularly keeping in view the submissions that he (Kejriwal) is required to be confronted with the material collected and statements recorded so far in the course of the investigation,”
-special judge Kaveri Baweja said.
The court observed Kejriwal’s verbal commitment to cooperate with the investigating agency and his lack of opposition to the remand extension request. However, Kejriwal raised concerns during the proceedings, asserting that the witness statements compiled by the ED failed to link him to the alleged offenses and questioning the basis of his arrest.
“On perusal of the statements recorded in the course of the investigation and in view of the fact that extension of custodial interrogation of the accused has been sought for further sustained and detailed interrogation, the ED custody of the accused (Kejriwal) is hereby extended till April 1,”
–the court said.
Furthermore, Kejriwal criticized the ED for allegedly withholding documents that could potentially favor his case, including evidence that could challenge the ED’s claim of him receiving Rs 100 crores in “kickbacks.” He also highlighted a particular instance where a witness reportedly made a significant donation to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), suggesting potential biases in the investigation.
“He further submitted in the open court during the proceedings that statements of witnesses recorded by the investigating agency do not in any manner connect him with the alleged offences and questioned his arrest in the matter,”
-the court noted.
“Accused (Kejriwal) has further submitted that one of the witnesses had donated a large sum of money to the BJP,”
-the court further noted.
On the other hand, the ED’s counsel, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, dismissed Kejriwal’s statements as irrelevant to the current phase of the investigation, focusing instead on the lack of merit in Kejriwal’s accusations regarding the nondisclosure of exculpatory evidence. Raju emphasized the existence of ample evidence delineating the money trail linked to the alleged kickbacks and its utilization by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in the 2021-22 Goa assembly elections.
“He (ASG) further submitted that there is also no merit in the submissions that the ED has not placed on record the material favouring the accused and questioned as to how the accused has knowledge about documents in the custody of ED,”
-the court said.
Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta, representing Kejriwal, reiterated his client’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Nonetheless, he challenged the ED’s basis for seeking Kejriwal’s remand, pointing out that the adequacy of the grounds for arrest was still under judicial review by the Delhi High Court.
“In so far as the submissions with respect to there not being sufficient grounds for arrest of the accused are concerned, the said matter is admittedly subjudice before the Delhi High Court in a petition wherein the accused has challenged the grounds of his arrest,”
-the court concluded.
This judicial proceeding encapsulates the complexity of legal arguments and evidentiary challenges in high-profile cases, highlighting the delicate balance between investigative diligence and the rights of the accused.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Arvind Kejriwal
Click Here to Read Previous Reports of Delhi Excise Policy Scam
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
