’Perverse, there is direct evidence’: What ED argued in Delhi HC against CM Arvind Kejriwal’s bail order

Challenging the bail granted to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the liquor policy case, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday approached the Delhi High Court and said that the trial court did not give them a proper opportunity to be heard.

A vacation bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain was hearing the argument.

SV Raju, the Additional Solicitor General, appeared on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate.

Senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Vikram Chaudhari represented Arvind Kejriwal.

Here's what ED argued in Delhi High Court

1) The trial court's order, which has been made available today, is "perverse". You don't hear me. You don't look at the reply saying it's bulky. There can't be a more perverse order than this.

2) We were not given a proper opportunity to be heard.

3) I was not given proper time of 2-3 days to file written submissions. This is not done. On merits, I have an excellent case.

4) The trial court said finish of in half an hour as it wanted to deliver the judgment. I am making the allegations with full seriousness.

5) This is a wrong statement. We read Magunta Reddy statement. You can decide against me but don't say wrong things about me in the order. There is direct evidence. We also pointed out that this fellow met the CM. And he said that Kejriwal told me give me 100 crores. Proceeds of crime is recognised, said ASG on trial court observation that ED failed to point out direct evidence

6) We have shown all this to show that he had a role in the demand of 100 crores. Yet the judge says no direct evidence. Direct evidence is in the form of statement. There is corroboration also.

7) We have traced out 45 crores. In our reply we have shown that money was used in Goa elections. End to end money trail has been given.

8) Our case is that Kejriwal is guilty of money laundering offence in two capacities. One is individual capacity where he personally demanded 100 crores and was part of the policy. His role shows generation of proceeds of crime. Second, he is vicariously liable because AAP is guilty of offence of money laundering, reported Live Law quoting ASG.

9) ED is not silent. The order is silent. Despite the ED shouting from the rooftop all these things.

10) At stage of bail, even 161 statements are looked at. Here there are statements under section 50 PMLA which are admissible as evidence.