'No Money Has Been Recovered, There Is No Trace': Supreme Court To ED On Case Against AAP MP Sanjay Singh

While hearing the bail plea of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh in the money laundering case related to the Delhi liquor policy case, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 2) orally observed that no money had been recovered from Singh and there were as many as 9 exculpatory statements given in his respect by approver-Dinesh Arora.

Based on overall facts, the Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta and PB Varale pointed to ED counsel and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju during the hearing that if the Court were to grant bail to Singh on merits, then it would have to make a prima facie finding that he has committed no offence, given the mandate of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). This might have ramifications on the trial, the bench cautioned. In this backdrop, the bench asked the ASG to obtain instructions from the ED on whether further detention of Singh was even required.

To quote Justice Khanna, "You have kept him in custody for 6 months. Dinesh Arora has not initially implicated him. Later on, in a statement, he does. No money has been recovered, the trace of money is not there because it was long back. Fact of the matter is money has not been recovered. Please keep in mind that if we are [...] with him, we are required to record in terms of section 45 that he has prima facie not committed an offense. That could have its own ramifications in trial."

When the bench reassembled after the lunch break, Raju conceded and offered a concession in respect of Singh in peculiar facts of the case. Without saying anything on merits, the Bench passed its order directing Singh's release on terms and conditions to be fixed by the Trial Court.

In the order, the Court expressly clarified that the bail was being granted based on the concession by the ED and not on merits. The order shall not be treated as a precedent, the Court added.

The order was preceded by substantial arguments being addressed by Sr Adv Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of Singh, which included -

(i) That the entire ED case against Singh was based only on statement of Dinesh Arora, who turned approver. Initially, Arora made 9 exculpatory statements in respect of Singh. However, later he was arrested and made inculpatory statement in custody

(ii) That the ED gave a no-objection to grant of bail to Arora (even though Section 45 PMLA was involved), leveraging the same for his Section 50 PMLA statement naming Singh

(iii) That the alleged bribe giver and taker as well as the intermediary had themselves not corroborated the prosecution case

(iv) That the ED launched a vendetta against Singh after he held a press conference to call out the error of putting his name in supplementary chargesheet in place of one Rahul Singh

(v) That no money had been recovered and there was no CCTV footage

(vi) That there was no "necessity" or "basis" to arrest Singh

(vii) That the ED placed exculpatory statements in unrelied documents, which Singh could not peruse. The practice was a 'travesty of justice' and must be stopped by Courts

The order, albeit passed on ED's concession, marks the first instance of an Aam Aadmi Party leader being released from custody, pursuant to arrest in connection with the Delhi liquor policy case.

Case Details

1. Sanjay Singh v. Union of India & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 14510 of 2023

2. Sanjay Singh v. Directorate Of Enforcement | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2558 of 2024