Delhi court says ED is acting with bias against Arvind Kejriwal in excise policy case

Delhi court criticizes biased actions of ED against Arvind Kejriwal in excise policy case, bail granted then put on hold.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) was acting with bias against Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) founder Arvind Kejriwal, who was booked in the excise policy case, the Delhi court observed on June 20 while granting him bail. The court’s order was then put on hold by the Delhi High Court on June 21.

The trial court had said that ED had failed to give any direct evidence linking Mr. Kejriwal with the proceeds of the crime.

It also came down heavily on the ED’s arguments that investigation was an art, “....because if it is so, then, any person can be implicated and kept behind the bars by artistically procuring the material against him after artistically avoiding/withdrawing exculpatory material from the record. This very scenario constrains the court to draw an inference against the investigating agency that it is not acting without bias,” the court said.

The court’s statements came on the arguments made by the ED, through Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, in which the agency had said that an approver cannot be discredited for the reason that he had been given an inducement in respect of bail or pardon. The agency added that “investigation is an art and sometimes, an accused is given lollipop in the face of some assurance of relief so that truth can be surfaced”.

Arvind Kejriwal | The prophet of probity

Special Judge Niyay Bindu of the Rouse Avenue Court also said that the Central agency remained silent on the fact that Mr. Kejriwal was not named by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in its first information report (FIR) or in the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered by the ED.

The court noted that the allegations against the Delhi Chief Minister surfaced only in the subsequent statements of certain co-accused. It noted that Mr. Kejriwal had not been summoned by the court to date but was lying in judicial custody on the insistence of the ED on the pretext that the investigation was still on.