Read Time: 03 minutes

Synopsis

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, informed the Delhi High Court that Kejriwal is a victim of a ‘witch-hunt’ by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and that canceling his bail in the money laundering case would constitute a miscarriage of justice.

Opposing the ED's plea against the granting of bail, Kejriwal stated that the ED used illegal methods to pressure other co-accused by granting them approver status in the case, inducing them to make incriminating statements in exchange for a no objection bail.

Refuting the ED's allegation that the trial court did not provide a fair opportunity to address arguments, Kejriwal asserted that the bail order was well-reasoned and demonstrated due consideration of relevant arguments from both parties.

Kejriwal claimed that the ED's submissions were legally untenable and reflected an overbearing attitude towards the courts. He argued that the language used by the ED on its grounds before the court deserved criticism and could demoralize the judiciary.

Kejriwal added that no offence was established against him under Section 3 of the PMLA, and his life and liberty should be protected from unjustified violation by the ED based on malicious intent. 

Kejriwal argued that his ED custody was unjustified and aimed at harassment, as no relevant evidence was probed. He emphasized the absence of proof that the AAP received funds or kickbacks from the South group for the Goa election campaign.

The court adjourned the hearing to July 15, accepting the ED's request to file a rejoinder to Kejriwal's reply. 

Case Title: ED v Arvind Kejriwal