Sanjay Singh Added As Accused Based On Approver's Statements: Singhvi Argues Against AAP Leader's Arrest In Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today posted to April 2 the hearing of Rajya Sabha MP and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Sanjay Singh's plea against his arrest & remand by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case.

The order was passed by a Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, after hearing submissions made on behalf of Singh.

To recap, the central agency's allegations centre around an employee of businessman Dinesh Arora delivering Rs. 2 crores to Singh's house on two occasions. After the allegations were made by Arora, searches were conducted at Singh's residence in Delhi. He was arrested by ED on October 4, 2023. 

Singh filed two pleas against two separate Delhi High Court orders - one refusing to set aside his arrest and the other denying him bail. Both were listed before the Court today. The bail plea will next be taken up on April 19.

Senior Advocate Dr. AM Singhvi, appearing for Singh, urged before the Court today that the leader was named as an accused for the first time by Dinesh Arora, who turned approver in both ED and CBI cases and later got bail. It was highlighted that prior to the incriminating statements given in ED custody and after securing bail, Arora had given 9 other statements over course of one and a half years, in which Singh was not accused.

Singhvi emphasized that Singh made a defamation complaint, and pursuant to it, he was arrested by ED without issuance of any summons. "Your Lordships are dealing with it after 1.5 years...there have been 11 exculpatory statements", he added.

The Senior Counsel also submitted that instead of Rahul Singh, the AAP leader's name was mentioned by the probe agency in its supplementary chargesheet - although later it was acknowledged and rectified. At this point, ASG SV Raju (appearing for ED) claimed that the error was "immediately" corrected.

Taking objection to the word 'immediately', Singhvi stated that the error was corrected 6 months after it was made. By the time, the press had carried it and Singh had complained.

With regard to Dinesh Arora, Singhvi contended that he was given bail as ED gave "no-objection". "I wonder [in] how many cases they give no-objection", he remarked.

When the Bench enquired if the agency had mentioned Singh's involvement with money for Goa Elections in its 'reasons to believe', Singhvi replied in the negative. On another Court query, he informed that Raman Chawla had been identified as Dinesh Arora's "person".

Referring to the legal position on the issue of approver's testimony, Singhvi pled that Arora's testimony may be gone into by the court but the same shall be corroborated (which is not the case).

The ASG, on the other hand, brought up that a photograph of one of the Section 50 PMLA statements made by Arora was taken from ED office and found at Singh's residence. Singhvi countered, "it was received in the prosecution complaint".

The Bench enquired, "this statement was filed in the court?" Raju replied, "Yes, statement was filed but...".

Noting, Justice Khanna interjected, "Mr Raju, if statement was filed in the Court, then it becomes public property...his contention which you'll have to answer is, if the statement is made public property and if somebody from the party is being prosecuted, he may have interest in that".

Saying that there was no quarrel with the proposition, Raju elaborated his submission: "before it is made a public document, he seems to have got the copy...he has copy of the document which I have never filed".

At this juncture, Justice Khanna said it was for the agency to investigate how the document came to be with Singh.

Notably, during the hearing, Singhvi also raised a point that the allegations against Singh were not specific. Further, the giver-taker of bribes had not corroborated the allegations, while Singh himself was not stated to have received the tainted money. The only tainted material, Singhvi asserted, were statements of Dinesh Arora and his employee - Raman Chawla.

Case Title: Sanjay Singh V. Union of India and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 14510/2023 (and connected matter)