New Delhi: Aam Aadmi Party leader and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh on Friday moved the Delhi High Court challenging his arrest in the Delhi Liquor scam case and has also challenged the remand granted by the trial court.
After Sanjay Singh's lawyer mentioned the matter before the bench headed by the Chief Justice of the Delhi court, it agreed to hear the matter today itself.
Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court had on October 10 had extended the Enforcement Directorate's (ED's) remand by a further three days till October 13. He was later produced in court after five days of ED custody in the Delhi Excise policy money laundering case.
The ED's counsel earlier submitted that a bribe was demanded to clear the liquor licences. ED's Special Counsel also submitted that the statement of a businessman has been recorded during the investigation. Multiple searches have been conducted in Chandigarh.
During arguments, the ED said that it had recorded the statement of a businessman but could not disclose the content of the statement. ED also said that a bribe was demanded to clear the liquor licences.
The agency also said that Sarvesh Mishra, an alleged associate of Sanjay Singh was not cooperating in the investigation and has been summoned afresh by the ED for questioning.
Senior advocate Rebecca John argued for Sanjay Singh and submitted that in the five days, no confrontation with the witness took place. the senior advocate submitted that to make a case for further ED remand is saying that a bribe was demanded. She added that arguments of non-cooperation violate my fundamental rights." I will not plead guilty," senior counsel said.
The advocate also argued, "If I wanted to destroy the evidence I would have done it in one and half years. She also argued that I (Sanjay Singh ) reside in government accommodation, which is under CCTV. Who has come to my house with the packet?" "They have the CDR of my phone, what more evidence do they want," the senior advocate asked.
"For what you need me in custody, the counsel argued. The businessman who has been examined was not confronted with the accused while opposing the remand referred to the Supreme Court judgements," the counsel stated.
"The grant of police custody should be exceptional and not a rule. Police custody is not the norm, it is an exception, she argued. They have to make out a case while seeking custody. Nothing in application necessitates futher police custody," counsel added.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) recently arrested Sanjay Singh after a day-long questioning by the ED officials at his Delhi residence. Sanjay Singh's party colleague and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia of Delhi was also arrested in the same liquor policy scam case.
ED claims that Singh and his associates played a part in the Delhi government's decision to give licenses to alcohol shops and merchants in 2020, causing losses to the state exchequer and violating anti-corruption laws.
ED has previously searched a number of locations including the homes and offices of Sanjay Singh's close associate Ajit Tyagi and other contractors and businessmen who allegedly benefited from the policy. In its nearly 270-page supplementary charge sheet, the ED has called Sisodia a key conspirator in the case.
The Delhi liquor scam case or the excise policy case pertains to allegations that the Arvind Kejriwal-led Delhi government's excise policy for 2021-22 allowed cartelisation and favoured certain dealers who had allegedly paid bribes for it, a charge that has been strongly refuted by the AAP.
ED, last year filed its first chargesheet in the case. The agency said it has so far undertaken over 200 search operations in this case after filing an FIR after taking cognisance of a CBI case which was registered on the recommendation of the Delhi lieutenant governor.
The CBI inquiry was recommended on the findings of the Delhi Chief Secretary's report filed in July showing prima facie violations of the GNCTD Act 1991, Transaction of Business Rules (ToBR)-1993, Delhi Excise Act-2009, and Delhi Excise Rules-2010.
The ED and the CBI had alleged that irregularities were committed while modifying the Excise Policy, undue favours were extended to licence holders, the licence fee was waived or reduced and the L-1 licence was extended without the competent authority's approval. The beneficiaries diverted "illegal" gains to the accused officials and made false entries in their books of account to evade detection. (ANI)
