'Evidence Widely Destructed': ED's Bombshell Revelation Before Supreme Court On Arvind Kejriwal's Arrest

delhi liquor scam case ‘evidence widely destructed’: ed’s bombshell revelation before supreme court on arvind kejriwal’s arrest

New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed a response before the Supreme Court opposing a petition by Arvind Kejriwal, challenging the High Court’s order legalising his arrest. In its affidavit, the ED contends that Kejriwal’s arrest was made only after the Delhi High Court denied interim relief to him.

The central probe agency also informed the Supreme Court that there were no “malafide or extraneous reasons” behind the arrest. The agency asserted that Kejriwal exhibited a “non-cooperative attitude.” The probe agency claimed that Kejriwal’s conduct during the probe led to his arrest.

“The accused, by his conduct, has himself contributed and aided the investigating officer regarding the existence of the necessity to arrest, apart from the material in possession of the IO, to form the satisfaction that the petitioner is guilty of the offence of money laundering,” the agency said in its affidavit to the Supreme Court.

ED responded that Kejriwal had been avoiding interrogation by failing to appear before the agency despite being summoned nine times. Additionally, over 170 mobile phones were reportedly changed or destroyed by 36 individuals during the period of the liquor scam.

“Even on the date of the search during his interrogation while recording his statement under Section 17 of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), he was avoiding answering questions by being evasive and totally non-co-operative even with respect to simple non-incriminating questions,” ED added.

Highlighting the challenges faced in the investigation, the ED claimed significant destruction of evidence in the case. The agency stated that despite the concerted efforts to destroy digital evidence, key evidence linking Kejriwal to the proceeds of crime was recovered.

The affidavit underscores the deliberate destruction of evidence, suggesting a conscious effort by the accused to obstruct the investigation into money laundering offences. According to the ED, this destruction corroborates the statements made by the accused under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

“The arrest of a person, however high he may be, for commission of offence based on material, can never violate the concept of free and fair elections….Treating a politician differently from an ordinary criminal in a matter of arrest would amount to arbitrary and irrational exercise of power of arrest which would violate the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution,” the affidavit states

In response to the affidavit, the AAP accused the ED of being a machine of pedalling falsehoods, dubbing it as a tool of deceit operating under the directives of their “masters, the BJP”.

How ED Justified Kejriwal’s Arrest Before SC

• Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest occurred after the Delhi High Court denied him interim relief.
• The Enforcement Directorate (ED) claims that Kejriwal had evaded interrogation, despite being summoned nine times.
• In its response to the Supreme Court, the ED revealed that over 170 mobile phones were changed or destroyed by 36 individuals during the period of the scam.
• The ED asserts that the arrest of a person, regardless of their stature, for an offence based on evidence does not violate the concept of free and fair elections.
• The investigation into the liquor scam is complicated by the widespread destruction of evidence, including the alteration or destruction of mobile phones.
• Despite the significant destruction of evidence, the ED claims to have recovered crucial evidence linking Kejriwal to the proceeds of crime.
• The deliberate destruction of digital evidence was allegedly intended to conceal the involvement of the accused in money laundering activities.
• The ED argues that the proactive destruction of evidence indicates a conscious effort by the accused to obstruct the investigation into money laundering offences.
• This destruction of evidence is seen as corroborating the statements made by the accused under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and implicates them in money laundering offences.

Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest on March 21 stemmed from his alleged involvement in a money laundering investigation related to the Delhi excise policy case.

On April 9, the Delhi High Court upheld Kejriwal’s arrest, citing his repeated refusal to comply with summons from the ED as a compelling factor necessitating his arrest.