New Delhi, June 19 (IANS) A Delhi court on Wednesday extended Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s judicial custody in the excise policy case, while also hearing arguments at length on his regular bail plea.
Vacation Judge Niyay Bindu said that she would not reserve her order.
“I will not reserve order. Everyone knows it is a high-profile matter. I will pass the order after hearing it,” she said as she posted the continuation of the hearing on Thursday.
The court heard arguments from Kejriwal’s counsel, while the Enforcement Directorate (ED) presented its case but could not complete it.
The judge deferred the hearing to Thursday, stating: “I have to pass some orders (in other cases) and give ‘dasti’ (service of notice in person) copies.”
The judge also heard CM Kejriwal’s application to allow his wife Sunita Kejriwal to be present during his medical examination, with the court awaiting a report from Tihar Jail on the matter. The judge clarified that the central agency had no role in Kejriwal’s request for treatment inside jail.
During the bail arguments, senior advocate Vikram Chaudhary, representing Kejriwal, contended that the case against him relied on statements from individuals who were allegedly promised bail for supporting the ED’s case. He questioned the credibility of these witnesses and suggested their statements were made under duress after failing to obtain bail.
Chaudhary also cited the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest before the Lok Sabha elections, suggesting it was politically motivated. He argued that there was no material evidence or money trail against Kejriwal, describing the investigation as “the biggest instrument of oppression”.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the ED, argued that Kejriwal had not been summoned as an accused but was now facing charges after the special court took cognisance of the money laundering offence. He said that the credibility of the statements could only be assessed during the trial, not at the bail stage, while adding that inducements given to approvers were lawful and necessary for obtaining evidence. He argued that Kejriwal was liable not only in his personal capacity but also as the head of the Aam Aadmi Party, alleging he had demanded a bribe of Rs 100 crore.
–IANS
spr/vd
