ED told to come clean on timing of arrest
Justice Khanna explained that Mr. Kejriwal’s defence was focussed on the circumstances of his arrest as getting bail would be hard under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Under Section 19 (the ED’s power to arrest), the onus was on the agency to show reasonable basis and material to prove an accused person’s guilt. Whereas, under Section 45 (bail under PMLA), the burden shifts to the accused to prima facie convince a court that he was innocent.
Earlier in the hearing, Mr. Singhvi pointed out that an arrest in a PMLA case could only be eected if the investigating ocer had reason to believe the “guilt” of the accused. “An arrest cannot happen on the basis of suspicion. The threshold is very high,” the senior lawyer contended.
He said the arrest of Mr. Kejriwal was based on hearsay and statements that accused-turned-approvers had made after their arrest. Though none of their earlier statements had named Mr. Kejriwal, these were suppressed by the agency.
One of the accused, Sarath Reddy, had earlier refused to name Mr. Kejriwal. The ED had objected to his plea for interim bail though his wife was unwell. His request for bail, however, sailed through after he made a statement implicating Mr. Kejriwal. A similar train of events happened with another accused, Raghav Magunta. “Once the statement (naming the CM is made), the ED’s opposition suddenly turns into benevolence,” Mr. Singhvi said. He said Mr. Magunta and his father were contesting the elections. “It was a farce... turning approvers and all,” he added.
‘No evidence’
He stressed that there was not a shred of evidence on the money trail or the proceeds of crime under Section 3 of the PMLA. The statement of Mr. Kejriwal under Section 50 of the PMLA was not recorded before his arrest. On the allegations that money was spent on the Goa election campaign, Mr. Singhvi said neither was AAP made a party in this case nor did the ED claim that the money was crime proceeds that passed through Mr. Kejriwal into the party coers.
The Supreme Court questioned the continuous ow of complaints from the initiation of proceedings. It noted that Section 8 of the PMLA required the investigation to be completed at the most in 365 days. The court asked the ED which facts of AAP leader Manish Sisodia’s case were relevant to Mr. Kejriwal’s case.