Why didn’t you seek bail? Asks SC: Arvind Kejriwal responds

636

The legal counsel of Arvind Kejriwal argued before the Supreme Court on Monday that the arrest of the Delhi Chief Minister was unlawful. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi contended that Arvind Kejriwal was arrested from his home without prior questioning or the recording of his statement, as mandated by the anti-money laundering law, despite his name not being mentioned in key documents until December 2023.

Singhvi emphasised that the power to arrest does not equate to the necessity of arrest and that guilt must be established, not merely suspicion, especially under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Arvind Kejriwal has moved the Supreme Court challenging his arrest and has sought interim release, arguing that an illegal arrest renders subsequent custody unlawful.

When asked why bail was not sought in the trial court, Singhvi explained that they approached the Supreme Court due to its broader jurisdiction.

The Enforcement Directorate arrested Arvind Kejriwal on March 21 after the Delhi High Court declined to provide him protection. The Chief Minister, currently detained in Tihar jail, contends that the denial of interim bail should not justify his arrest.

In an affidavit, Arvind Kejriwal denounced his arrest as politically motivated, alleging that it aimed to benefit the ruling party during the ongoing general election.

He characterised the case as an illustration of the Central government’s misuse of investigative agencies to target political opponents.

The Enforcement Directorate justified the arrest, citing Arvind Kejriwal’s purported lack of cooperation. According to their affidavit, Arvind Kejriwal evaded interrogation, failing to appear before the investigating officer despite being summoned nine times.

During his statement recording under Section 17 of the PMLA, he allegedly exhibited evasiveness and non-cooperation.

The Supreme Court hearing will resume tomorrow to further deliberate on the matter.