Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Wednesday moved the Supreme Court challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate after Delhi High Court denied him any relief.
The plea stated that the High Court failed to appreciate that section 164 CrPC statements are not held to be gospel truth and can always be doubted by the courts.
The arrest of the petitioner on March 21, 2024 i.e., after announcement of the general elections is obviously motivated by extraneous considerations.’ the plea states.
According to the plea, these statements do not cause any offence whatsoever, including the predicate against the petitioner.
The plea has sought Kejriwal’s release in the money laundering case and declaration that his arrest u/S 19 of the PMLA 2002 was illegal.
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Wednesday moved the Supreme Court challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate after Delhi High Court denied him any relief.
The petition before the top court stated that the plea is being moved in urgent emergent circumstances where the sitting Chief Minister of NCT of Delhi has been illegally arrested by the Enforcement Directorate ‘in a motivated manner’ in the middle of the election cycle and especially after the declaration of the schedule for the general election 2024.
advertisement
Arvind Kejriwal’s plea states that his arrest was made solely based on subsequent, contradictory and ‘highly belated statements of co-accused’ who have now turned approvers.
It argued that such statements and materials were in the Enforcement Directorate’s possession for the last 9 months and the arrest was still made illegally ahead of the general election 2024.
ED’s PROCESS MISUSED
The petition states that the Enforcement Directorate has allowed its process to be used and misused by vested interests as an instrument of oppression to not only invade the liberty of political opponents in the midst of general elections but also to tarnish their reputation and self-esteem.
Stating that Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest bears serious, irreversible ramifications for the future of electoral democracy in India, the plea stated that if Kejriwal is not released forthwith to participate in the upcoming elections, it will establish a precedence in law for ruling parties to arrest heads of political opposition on flimsy and vexatious charges before elections, thereby eroding the core principles of our Constitution.
The plea stated that the High Court failed to appreciate that section 164 CrPC statements are not held to be gospel truth and can always be doubted by the courts. These statements can never be used as substantive evidence of the truth of the facts but may be used for contradictions and corroboration of a witness who made them.
According to Kejriwal’s plea, the High Court failed to appreciate that the statement of co-accused later-turned approver statements cannot be the starting point for ascertaining the guilt of the accused person, and also the High Court has failed to appreciate the procedure adopted by the probe agency in procuring such statements by coercion.
BELATED APPROVER STATEMENTS OBTAINED ON INDUCEMENT OF BAIL AND EXONERATION
The plea has argued that the High Court failed to appreciate that these subsequent, contradictory and belated Section 164 CrPC statements are obtained on the inducement of bail and exoneration and thus cannot be ex-facie be relied upon for purposes of ascertaining the guilt of the accused.
The plea has pointed out that the statements relied upon on the grounds of arrest were recorded by the Enforcement Directorate from December 7, 2022, till July 27, 2023 and subsequently, no further material has been collected against Arvind Kejriwal.
advertisement
‘No statement was recorded before the arrest on March 21, 2024 to seek any explanation about this old material, before deciding on the requirements of S.19 PMLA. The arrest of the petitioner on March 21, 2024 i.e., after announcement of the general elections is obviously motivated by extraneous considerations.’ the plea states.
The petition has further stated that while the ED has relied on statements by C. Arvind, Magunta Reddy and Sarath Reddy to arrest Kejriwal, these statements do not even remotely suggest that Kejriwal has done any act of commission or omission within the scope of S.3 PMLA.
According to the plea, these statements do not cause any offence whatsoever, including the predicate against the petitioner.
The plea has contended that the statements by Butchi Babu and Raghav Magunta are entirely hearsay as they were not present in any meeting with Kejriwal. Furthermore, the statement of Raghav seeks to insert events of which his father, Magunta, has not spoken off.
The plea has sought Kejriwal’s release in the money laundering case and declaration that his arrest u/S 19 of the PMLA 2002 was illegal.
Published By: Shweta Kumari Published On: Apr 11, 2024
Tune In
