A Delhi court on Friday reserved its order on the petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking 10-day remand of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Thursday from his residence after interrogating him for over two hours in connection with the Delhi liquor policy scam
Earlier on Thursday, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had refused to grant Kejriwal interim protection from coercive action in the case.
The national convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) moved the High Court challenging the summons issued to him by ED. He also filed an application seeking interim protection in the case.
The High Court has listed the case for hearing on April 22.
ED had earlier filed two criminal complaints against Kejriwal in the Rouse Avenue Court of Delhi alleging non-compliance of the summons by him.
The national agency had issued nine summons to Kejriwal, who chose to skip them all.
Earlier in the day, a Division Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain refused to grant any interim protection from arrest to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in relation to the summons issued to him by the national agency.
Noting that Kejriwal’s plea for interim protection will be heard on April 22 with his main petition challenging ED’s summons, the High Court said it was not inclined to grant any such protection at this stage.
The Division Bench observed that until and unless the Chief Minister appeared before ED, he would not be able to know what information the investigation agency wanted.
The High Court further said that if the AAP national convenor had apprehensions of being arrested while attending to the ED summons, he should have filed an anticipatory bail in the lower court.
The Division Bench then asked the ED as to what prevented it from arresting the Chief Minister.
The High Court made the observations on a petition filed by Kejriwal plea seeking direction to the agency not to take any coercive action against him on his appearance in lieu of the summons.
He also filed a separate petition seeking quashing of proceedings against him emanating out of the ECIR (enforcement case information report) registered by ED in the case.
He approached the High Court three days after getting bail by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Divya Malhotra on March 16 in the case based on the complaints filed by the investigation agency against him for allegedly disobeying the summons.
Appearing for Arvind Kejriwal, Senior Advocate Abhisekh Manu Singhvi submitted that the summons have been issued to the Chief Minister with an oblique motive to arrest and on the same day when schedule for the general elections was declared. The counsel argued that the summons did not specify the capacity in which his physical appearance has been sought and was devoid of material and questionnaire.
Representing the national agency, ASG Raju submitted that it had material to summon Kejriwal and was insisting on his physical presence in his individual capacity. He added that a person who flouted the law by skipping summons should not be heard entirely. He underlined that though the probe agency had the right to arrest, it never said that it would arrest the CM.