‘Can’t Insinuate Political Motive To ED In Absence Of Material’: Delhi High Court Rejects Sanjay Singh’s Plea Challenging Arrest, ED Remand

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed the plea moved by Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh challenging his arrest and remand in the money laundering case related to the liquor policy scam.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma denied relief to Singh after hearing his counsel, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, as well as ASG SV Raju appearing for Enforcement Directorate.

On the argument that it is a politically motivated case, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that ED is a premier investigator agency of the country and that the court cannot and will not be a part of the discussion in absence of material on record which proves the same.

“Courts are best left untouched by such influences and are only bound by the oath,” Justice Sharma said.

The court said that though Singh is a political figure, he has to be placed on an equal footing as any other accused in a criminal case. It added that though every person has a right to protect public image, however, upholding that right cannot come in the way of the right of State to investigate a crime.

This court will not insinuate political motive to the investigating agency (ED) in absence of any material on record at this stage, Justice Sharma said.

Furthermore, the court also said that the petition is premature at this stage and the investigation is still to take place.

This court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of remand or the arrest. The petition is dismissed, the court said.

The court held that the statement of the approver Dinesh Arora was recorded by ED following the due process of law and the question as to whether the same was recorded due to pressure or without procedure cannot be considered at this stage.

It said that there is nothing to suggest that ED extracted the approver’s statement by lawlessness or illegally.

Appearing for Singh, Chaudhari had submitted that the ED arrested the AAP leader, who is a reputed leader in the country, without complying due process of law. He said that Singh, in the past one year, was neither summoned nor called for interrogation by the ED and was straightaway arrested on October 05.

On the other hand, Raju opposed the petition and submitted that Singh’s plea, which was a bail application in the "guise" of writ petition, was not maintainable.

Singh is presently in judicial custody. The AAP leader was arrested on October 4 by the Enforcement Directorate. This was after searches were conducted at his residence in the national capital. 

Singh is the third AAP leader to be arrested in the matter. He was remanded to five days of ED custody, which was extended to further three days. Thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody.

The raids were conducted by ED at Singh’s residence after he was named by businessman Dinesh Arora, accused in the case, who later turned approver in both ED and CBI cases.

ED alleges that an employee of Dinesh Arora delivered Rs. 2 crores to Sanjay Singh's house on two occasions and the agency has to confront the AAP leader with digital evidence.

ED has alleged that the excise policy was implemented as part of a conspiracy to give wholesale business profit of 12% to certain private companies. It has said that such a stipulation was not mentioned in the minutes of meetings of Group of Ministers (GoM).

The agency also alleges that there was a conspiracy which was coordinated by Vijay Nair and other individuals along with South Group to give extraordinary profit margin to wholesalers. It was contended that Nair was acting on behalf of Sisodia.

Title: Sanjay Singh v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1005