Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

A Delhi court on Thursday extended the judicial custody of senior AAP leader Sanjay Singh till January 10 in the excise policy scam case.

Special Judge M. K Nagpal of Rouse Avenue Court also asked the Enforcement Directorate to provide a copy of its fifth supplementary charge sheet and other related documents to Singh, a Rajya Sabha MP who was arrested in a money laundering case related to the alleged scam.

During the proceedings, the ED's counsel sought time to supply the prosecution complaint (ED's equivalent of a charge sheet) as well as the previous prosecution complaints and some other documents to Singh.

Sanjay Singh was arrested on October 4 by the ED in the money laundering case. Singh was taken into custody after a day-long search of his residence. This is the third high-profile arrest in the case. 

Earlier, the trial court had directed Singh not to give an interview to the media while being produced and also asked the press not to ask him questions. The judge had said, "Talking to the media while appearing in court creates a security problem".

The AAP MP was arrested a day after, a Delhi Court allowed Raghav Magunta, son of YSR Congress MP Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy and businessman Dinesh Arora, both accused in the case, to "turn approvers".

In the prosecution complaint filed by the ED, Sanjay Singh's name appeared in a statement by Arora. 

Arora and Magunta were arrested by the agency earlier this year and are out on bail. Besides the two businessmen, AAP's communication in-charge Vijay Nair was also arrested in September 2022, and former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia was arrested in February this year. 

Proceeding before Delhi High Court 

Notably, the AAP Leader had moved the High Court on October 13, challenging his arrest and ED remand in the case. On October 20, while dismissing Singh's plea Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had said, "At a premature stage, where investigation is yet to take place, this court doesn't find any ground to interfere with the order of remand or arrest".

Justice Sharma had said that, as in the case of a public figure or any individual citizen, a bar has to be raised. "The judicial commitment to assure human dignity, however, cannot extend to the quashing investigation process at its early stage," she added.

On the contention that the confession of the approver (Dinesh Arora) was under pressure and false in view of framing the present accused (Sanjay Singh), Justice Sharma said, "The statement was recorded with due process and the provisions of the law. The determination as to whether the confession was extracted under pressure and without a procedural framework or abuse of power cannot be considered at this stage".

Furthermore, on the contention that this is a politically motivated case of "malice" and the investigating agency (ED) is under the control of a particular political party, Justice Sharma said, "This court cannot and will not be part of either of the said discussion or the said adjudication unless the matter is in issue along with the material is placed before it for adjudication. The courts of this country have been best left untouched by such influences".