 for his alleged involvement in the Delhi Excise Policy scam case){kind=link}
A Delhi court on Friday extended till November 10, the judicial custody of Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh, who was arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for his alleged involvement in the Delhi Excise Policy scam case.
The AAP leader was produced today before Special Judge MK Nagpal of the Rouse Avenue Court after expiry of his judicial remand.
The accused was initially remanded to five days ED custody, after which Special Judge Nagpal remanded him to 14-day judicial custody.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had arrested Singh on October 4 in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy scam case. Singh was taken into custody after day-long searches at his residence.
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”.
Singh’s name appeared in a statement given by businessman Dinesh Arora to ED. Arora, along with Raghav Magunta, son of YSR Congress MP Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy, were arrested by the national agency earlier this year and are currently out on bail. On October 3, a Delhi court had allowed Arora and Magunta to turn approvers in the case.
ED had also arrested former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and AAP leader Manish Sisodia in February in connection with the case. Besides, the national agency had arrested AAP Communication In-charge Vijay Nair was also arrested in September 2022.
On October 13, Singh had moved the High Court challenging his arrest by ED and remand in the case.
Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, representing ED, argued that an amount of about Rs two crore was exchanged at Singh’s residence. He said the same was confirmed by Dinesh Arora’s CA after search at 239 places.
The national agency said it needed custody of Singh to confront him with digital evidence, including evidence from his phone.
Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, appearing for Singh, opposed the ED remand on the grounds that it was an absurd proposition for someone who was not involved at all.