LIVE UPDATES from Delhi court

ASG continues arguing.

ASG: Kejriwal is responsible not only in his personal capacity but even vicariously….He demanded a bribe of ₹100 crore, how can you say he is not prima facie guilty of the offence?

Court: You have argued at length, if you need 10-15 more minutes, I can give.

ASG says he will need 30 more mintues.

Court: I will not reserve order. Everyone knows it is a high-profile matter. I will pass the order after hearing it. I will not reserve the order.

Arguments on bail hearing start.

Court again requests the ASG to be brief. ASG says he will file written submissions.

Court: That means all the arguments made till now will be worthless.

Court extends Kejriwal’s judicial custody till July 3.

Court: Mr. Kejriwal, do you want to anything to the Court?

Kejriwal: No ma’am, my lawyers are there. They will address the Court.

Adv Vivek Jain addresses the Court on behalf of Kejriwal.

Jain: Their application is bereft of any merit. Even they are saying that the investigation is not complete.

Arvind Kejriwal produced before the Court through video conference. Kejriwal’s custody ends today.

Hearing to continue after lunch.

Court: I request you to be brief so that I can go through all the documents and pass the order.

ASG: It is the court that grants pardon, not the prosecution.

ASG: In a case when the prosecution finds it difficult to get the evidence, approvers are made. The law recognises approvers and law says they can be given inducements. The entire purpose of making approver is giving inducements. You are given a carrot… It is the law. … Giving pardon is an inducement but that is the law of the approver. An approver cannot be discredited because he has been given an inducement.

ASG refers to Delhi High Court order rejecting Kejriwal’s challenging to his arrest and remand in the case.

Judge Bindu presides. ASG begins his submissions.

Court says it will reassemble after 10 minutes.

ASG: This was no regular interim bail. It was only for the purpose of election. This order cannot be relied upon for regular bail here … SC has said its order is not an opinion on merits. How can he be permitted to argue that here?

ASG: The SC ordered his release only for elections … SC says he cannot attend his office or go to his secretariat. If the SC felt he is not guilty of this offence, why did it impose these conditions? … They knew the tenor of the SC order and that is why they moved interim bail on different grounds. They sought interim bail on medical grounds.

ASG: We collected evidence prior to his arrest as well. They are questioning the timing of the arrest and said after July 2023, there was nothing against them. They say Kejriwal was arrested to prevent him from campaigning in elections, the Supreme Court has taken care of that.

ASG: When and where to arrest a person is the prerogative of the investigating officer. Timing is immaterial under Section 45. The Section will become redundant if this proposition is accepted.

ASG: He says he could have been arrested earlier if material existed against him. But the timing is immaterial.

ASG: He says that the statements are not credible. The credibility of the statements can only be considered at the stage of trial. It cannot be looked into at the stage of bail. At bail stage, a mini-trial cannot be held.

ASG: The further investigation by CBI has revealed his role. So his assertion that he has no role in the predicate offence is false.

ASG: The court has to be satisfied that the person is not guilty of the offence. He doesn’t demonstrate that. He says he does not have any antecedents, that is irrelevant. He must show that he is not guilty of the offence. Therefore, he has not been able to do that. He says I am not there in corruption offence, but that is not relevant. The Supreme Court has said that you may not be an accused in the predicate offence but you can still be an accused in the PMLA case.

ASG: I will first refer to the antecedents. The lack of antecedents cannot be a ground for grant of bail. The ground is only that he is not guilty of offence punishable under PMLA. Please look at Section 45 PMLA. It does not say anything about antecedents or that because someone holds a constitutional post, he can be granted bail.

Court: Sir, I want you to address me on the issues raised by them. They have said he was not named in the original case. They say that there are only approver statements and that these statements are not believable. They have also said that he is a constitutional functionary and not a habitual offender.

Court: I want to know if the cognisance has been taken, what is the exact language used by the court while summoning Arvind Kejriwal.

ASG: It has been kept for order.

Court: I want a copy of the order to see the exact language.

ASG: CBI investigation shows that Kejriwal asked for a bribe of ₹100 crores.

ASG: He asked for funds for the AAP. It is the CBI’s case that Arvind Kejriwal demanded bribe.

ASG: He (Kejriwal) may not be an accused in the CBI offence but he can still be an accused in the PMLA case.

ASG: In this case, AAP has been made accused. There are a number of accused for which bail has been rejected. It means that the court has come the conclusion that there is an offence of money laundering.

ASG: Your lordship is aware of the rigorous of Section 45 PMLA.

ASG: The offence of money laundering has taken place. Cognisance has been taken by competent court and it has not been challenged. The issue is now only his (Kejriwal’s) role.

ASG: There is a judgement of the Supreme Court that says if the cognisance of an offence is taken, it means, prima facie, there is an offence.

ASG: As far as the offence of money laundering is concerned, cognisance of the offence has been taken.

ASG: Mr Kejriwal has not been summoned as yet as an accused in the case but prosecution complaint has been filed in the case.

Court: Please only address on the issues raised by the counsel for applicant.

Chaudhari concludes. ASG SV Raju begins his submissions for the ED.

Court: Please be brief, sir.

Chaudhari: The accused is in my lord’s custody. They (ED) have no role.

Court: ED has anything to say on this?

Chaudhari: They are strongly opposed to it. If Mr Kejriwal asks for even a glass of water, they will oppose it. Is it prosecution or persecution?

Chaudhari is now arguing on the application to allow Kejriwal’s wife Sunita Kejriwal to be present as an attendant when he is examined by the medical board.

Chaudhari: I am also suffering from a host of ailments. I am covered under proviso to Section 45 PMLA. I am not seeking interim bail today. But please consider the ailments I am suffering from.

Chaudhari: The question is, how will my lord view the arrest of a sitting CM in a case which was going on for a year-and-half before the arrest? Please see that the arrest was when the election was announced. Please also keep in mind the evidence that is against me. These statements are by tainted people.

Chaudhari: The triple test in my case is satisfied. I was granted bail, I satisfied that test and I surrendered.

Chaudhari: The ED’s reply shows that they are probing the predicate offence. They are probing my role, my conduct. It is not ED’s job.

Chaudhari: They say because Vijay Nair was occupying a guest room in a house allotted to a minister, he had access to me. They say the house was in close proximity. The LG’s house was closer to Vijay Nair than mine.

Chaudhari: There is no camera recording or money as such which has been exchanged. These are all in the form of statements. I will not be surprised if some more statements come to fill in lacunae. This investigation is unending, it will continue till eternity. It is the biggest instrument of oppression

Chaudhari: There is no corroborative evidence to show that money came from South group.

Chaudhari: ED thinks under Section 50, PMLA everything is admissible… But look at the veracity of the statements. There is no money trail.

Chaudhari: These approver statements, if at all they can be called evidence, they are weak evidence. It is my case that they are all false.

Chaudhari: Sarath Reddy’s (approver) company purchased electoral bond worth ₹50 crore for the ruling party.

Chaudhari: Please see his (approver Sarath Reddy’s) flip flops. He made 11 statements post his arrest with no allegation against me. Subsequently, he was granted interim bail on 5 April and later … he starts making incriminating statements against me.

Chaudhari refers to Sarath Reddy’s (approver) statement.

Chaudhari: He is also granted bail on grounds of back pain. Why this barter of liberty?

Chaudhari: Magunta Reddy contests elections on TDP ticket and is now part of the ruling NDA alliance

Chaudhari refers to statement of Magunta Reddy (accused turned approver in the excise policy case).

Chaudhari: He was asked specifically about me; he says he did not meet me in connection with excise policy. Later he makes a statement regarding me, his son then gets interim bail. Later he is granted pardon as well.

Chaudhari: When I say these people did not name me, they say that’s because they weren’t asked about me – is this how the statement is recorded?

Chaudhari: The statements were made after they were arrested by the ED and after they failed to get bail. The ED bartered their personal liberty for statements.

Chaudhari: These statements against me are of questionable veracity and lack material corroboration.

Chaudhari refers to judgements.

Chaudhari: They cannot arrogate powers to investigate the CBI case

Chaudhari: Whatever accusations they are levelling is like they are prosecuting me in the CBI case, not PMLA. They are harping on my conduct, if my conduct is bad it is to be determined by the CBI. ED can only probe my role in money laundering.

Chaudhari: If they can do this to a constitutional functionary, what will happen to an ordinary man?

Chaudhari: The accusations are dubious.

Chaudhari: The ED’s conduct is deplorable.

Chaudhari: They waited for the bugle of elections to be blown to arrest me. There were two or three ideas behind it. The malice in law is writ large. There is a malice behind the timing of the arrest as well

Chaudhari: Most of the statements were available to them much before that. the last statement recorded by them is August 2023. They are on record saying I am not an accused and that I am being summoned in my personal capacity. When they arrest me, they mention my role as CM and convenor of AAP.

Chaudhari: Please go to the timing. This entire case started in August 2022. I am arrested in March 2024.

Chaudhari: The entire case against me is based on the statements of people who are not only tainted but it appears that they were arrested and given promise of bail. They were promised pardon. They are no saints. These people were lured. There is a question on the credibility of these people.

Chaudhari: Even in ED cases, the bail is the rule

Chaudhari: On all aspects of Section 19, PMLA, etc., I am not going to bother this court because that is before the Supreme Court.

Chaudhari: I challenged my arrest, HC rejected it and SC has reserved its verdict. I was granted interim bail by SC; I sought an extension which was denied by the SC. I came here to get the interim bail and that has been rejected as well.

Chaudhari: On March 21, the stay application comes up before the HC, the HC denies any interim relief but issues notice. This happens at around noon but on the same day around 5 PM, after sunset they (ED) enter my house and arrest me.

Chaudhari: Please now come to March 16, 2024. General elections are announced. On the same day, they issue me summons. I approach High Court on March 19 challenging these summons. High Court issues notice and seeks reply in three weeks.

Chaudhari: I ask them if they have any questionnaire they can send to me. In January 2024 they send me the fourth summon. This summon is accompanied by an email. It says I am being called in my official capacity and I am not an accused.

Chaudhari: The next summon to me is one and half months later. I am not claiming any special status but let’s not forget that a constitutional functionary is being called. At least the chair is to be respected. When a CM writes that ‘I am being called in person and it impinges on my official duties are being affected …’

Chaudhari: The first summon in PMLA case is issued to me to appear on 2 November. I filed my reply. I asked them how are you calling me? Am I a witness or suspect? I ask them if I am being summoned in my individual capacity or as the CM or as convenor of AAP?

Chaudhari is now referring to a list of dates.

Chaudhari: 17 August 2022 is the CBI FIR. August 22 comes the ED’s ECIR. Several chargesheets were filed; in none of them was I made an accused. Till today, I am not an accused in the CBI case.

Chaudhari: The Supreme Court was confronted with a position as to whether a national party leader should be let out for a few days to campaign in the elections. The observations made in that regard may have some bearing when this court decides on his bail application.

Chaudhari takes the Court through the May 10 order of Supreme Court, granting interim bail to Kejriwal.

Chaudhari: The Supreme Court passed two orders. On May 10, 2024, it granted me interim bail, and on 17 May, the SC said that I can apply for regular bail.

Chaudhari informs the Court that Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest and remand is before the Supreme Court and the apex court has reserved its verdict on the plea.

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari appears for Arvind Kejriwal.

Matter taken up. Judge Nyaya Bindu hearing matter.

A trial court in Delhi is hearing two cases concerning the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the Delhi excise policy case.

Kejriwal was arrested on accusations of being part of a conspiracy to launder money allegedly received as kickbacks in exchange for intentionally leaving behind loopholes in the now-scrapped Delhi liquor policy of 2021-22.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has alleged that these loopholes were meant to benefit certain liquor sellers and that the bribes received were allegedly used to fund the AAP’s election campaign in Goa.

Kejriwal has denied the allegations and counter-accused the ED of running an extortion racket.

Today, the Rouse Avenue court will hear Kejriwal’s bail plea as well as his application to allow his wife, Sunita Agarwal, to join through video conference when Arvind Kejriwal is medically examined to assess his health.

Track this page for live updates from the hearing today.