2:20-2:30 PM

Singhvi: “I gave 5 names, father Magunta, son Raghav, Sarath Reddy...my chart refers to them. See the circumstances in which the statements were given, the inducement”

“MSR then MP from Congress, father of Raghav was forced to make statement in lieu of bail of son. Raghav is arrested on 11 February. After arrest, father in March'23 states that he met petitioner in Delhi for charitable land purposes,” he further says

Singhvi reads MSR's statement in the court, “I did not meet Kejriwal in the context of Delhi Liquor Policy.”

J Khanna asks, “Is a list of unrelied documents given with reasons of arrest?”

Singhvi replies, “No, with a complaint.”

MSR here is Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy, MP from Ongole constituency in Andhra Pradesh.

2:31-2:45 PM

Justice Khanna, addressing ASG Raju representing the ED, says, “His point is that the grounds of arrest should also include facts that support his case. You might be correct, that's his argument. We are not certain.”

The representative of Delhi CM, advocate Singhvi, says, “There is no evidence of use or projection. On September 16, 2022, there were no allegations against Kejriwal. He claims he doesn't know any of these individuals. Five months later, this person is arrested on February 11. He provides four statements.”

“These statements are hidden and omitted by the ED, not included in the prosecution complaint. Just because they made the complaint lengthy, does it make it less incriminating?” Singhvi says.

2:46-2:54 PM

Singhvi highlights the grounds of arrest concerning Raghav Magunta, a part of the South group. 

“It was disclosed that he paid 25 crores in cash, in accordance with the agreement between his father and Kavitha. This revelation mirrors his father's statement.” 

Singhvi also mentions the mental trauma Raghav went through, with his wife attempting suicide. 

“Raju's department opposed bail initially. However, later, bail was not opposed after Raghav implicated Kejriwal,” he says

2:55-3:10 PM

Advocate Singhvi, representing Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal during the Supreme Court hearing on the plea against his arrest by the ED, asserts, “There is no evidence that directly implicates me. The association with Vijay Nair is portrayed as if Nair and Kejriwal are synonymous.”

Singhvi highlights Sarath Reddy's statement, stating, "There is a lack of specificity, dates, or addresses. At most, it does not assert that Kejriwal demanded money. It's suggestive. Where is the legal basis here?" 

He adds, "This is a grave matter. These statements were not included in any prosecution complaint. They could have indicated that we are not relying on them... Sarath got bail for his wife's cancer treatment, despite opposition from the ED."

3:11-3:15 PM

In the Supreme Court, Abhishek Singhvi, the lawyer for Delhi CM, raises doubts about the timing of arrests, asking, “Did Vijay Nair, on behalf of Kejriwal, receive kickbacks? How does this align with the criteria of projection and use under Section 3? Nair was arrested in November 2022, and I was arrested in March 2024... there's no explanation for why there was no arrest during this period.”

3:16-3:20 PM

Singhvi highlights Sarath Reddy's arrest, saying, "Let's examine Sarath Reddy's situation... On April 19, he applied for bail in the Delhi High Court and provided a favourable statement. His bail was extended as the ED requested time to respond. Initially, there were objections due to cancer, but later, there was no objection." 

Singhvi continues, "Now, let's turn to the issue of inducement." 

Justice Khanna responds, "That may not be relevant." 

Singhvi argues, "These are circumstances, pressures... in addition to the fact that the statements do not constitute a violation of Section 3."

3:16-3:30 PM

Abhishek Singhvi, the lawyer representing Delhi CM in the Supreme Court, says, “Initially, Raghav did not make any allegations... his wife attempted suicide. He applied for interim bail, which was dismissed by the special judge. Later, when his maternal grandmother fell and was in the ICU, the Delhi High Court granted him interim bail. This decision by the Delhi High Court was challenged by the ED.”

During the Supreme Court hearing on Delhi CM's plea against his arrest by the ED in the liquor policy case, Advocate Singhvi remarks, "Receiving or not receiving cash is an offence under IT. It is not listed under PMLA schedule." 

Justice Khanna interjects, mentioning Manish Sisodia's sequence regarding policy formulation. Singhvi responds, “Factually, that judgment is not relevant to me.”

3:31-3:35 PM

Advocate Singhvi, discussing the case involving former Delhi minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia, remarks, “Sisodia was one step closer. Same documents, same 23 statements. Only the name is different. Based on the judgment I've reviewed so far, Your Lordships did not rule in favour of the ED.”

3:36-3:40 PM

Singhvi, discussing the judgment related to AAP leader Manish Sisodia's case, mentions, “Your Lordships summarized the case in the Sisodia judgment. There was no mention of Kejriwal.” 

Justice Khanna responds, “Initially, I considered whether I should handle this case since I decided the previous one. Then I realized it might be misconstrued as my reluctance.”

3:41-3:55 PM

 During the hearing of Delhi CM's plea against his arrest by the ED in connection with the liquor policy case, Justice Khanna remarks, "Criminal proceedings cannot exist independently... unless there is confiscation or attachment." 

He further explains, “First, there should be attachment, followed by the offence, and then a finding of the offence. Prosecution comes after attachment. According to VMC, this was the framework.”

3:41-3:55 PM

Singhvi, the Delhi CM's representative in the Supreme Court's hearing today, highlights the “safeguards provided under the PMLA to prevent unjustified arrests,” emphasising that the ED is expected to act impartially and with utmost fairness.

He draws a comparison between the judgments of Vijay Madanlal and Pankaj Bansal regarding Section 19 of the PMLA.

3:46-4:10 PM

Justice Khanna, responding to Abhishek Singhvi's arguments in the Supreme Court, remarks, "The time gap which is taking place between initiation of proceedings and repeated complaints being filed after some time... 365 days... is the upper limit." 

Addressing ASG Raju, representing ED, Justice Khanna asks, “One question is whether there are adjudicatory proceedings. Can you have criminal proceedings initiated? In terms of what has been held in VMC or otherwise. In this case, there has been no proceeding for attachment.”

Justice Khanna states, “You have to show how petitioner was... what they believe is the threshold of Section 19 is fairly high... they will be confronted with Section 45... that's why they are repeatedly coming against arrest.”

4:11-4:20 PM

After listening to arguments from Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal's lawyer, Abhishek Singhvi, regarding the plea in the Supreme Court against his arrest by the ED, Justice Khanna expressed concerns about the “timing” of the arrest, especially considering it was just before general elections. He urged ASG Raju, representing the ED, to be prepared with a response. 

"Liberty is exceedingly important; you can't deny that. The last question pertains to the timing of the arrest, as highlighted by them. The timing of the arrest, soon before the general elections," Justice Sanjiv Khanna tells ASG SV Raju. 

The ED has been asked to respond by Friday.

Inputs From: Source Link

Picture Source :