The Rouse Avenue court has granted Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal time to file a rejoinder in response to the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) reply. This decision came after Kejriwal’s counsel informed the court that they could not take instructions as Kejriwal had been arrested by the ED.
Senior advocate Ramesh Gupta, representing Kejriwal, stated that they were unable to get instructions due to Kejriwal’s arrest. Gupta highlighted that Kejriwal has 30 litigation cases across the country but was unable to have a legal interview due to the ED’s intervention. Gupta accused the ED of having no other business than opposing applications moved by Kejriwal.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Divya Malhotra, after hearing submissions from Gupta and ASG S V Raju, granted time to file a rejoinder and listed the matter for May 4. ASG Raju, appearing through video conferencing, mentioned that two legal interviews are permitted as per the jail manual and suggested that Kejriwal’s legal team could ask for more time.
However, Gupta raised concerns about filing a reply without being allowed to have a legal interview with Kejriwal. He criticized the ED, stating, “You don’t allow him to have food, don’t allow him to go to the toilet. ED so much after Kejriwal.“
On March 16, the ACMM of Rouse Avenue Court had granted bail to Kejriwal on two complaints filed by the ED for non-compliance of summons. The court noted that the Section is bailable in nature and directed Kejriwal to furnish Rs 15,000 in both complaint cases.
ASG S V Raju, along with Zoheb Hossain and Simon Benjamin, appeared for the ED, while Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta, along with Advocate Rajiv Mohan, Mohd Irshad, Mudit Jain, and Samprikta Ghosal, appeared for Arvind Kejriwal.
Earlier, Kejriwal had moved the Sessions Court challenging summons issued to him by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in ED complaints for not complying with the summons issued by the central probe agency in the Delhi liquor policy money laundering case.
The ED had filed a second complaint against Kejriwal under Section 190 (1)(a) CrPC r/w section 200 CrPC 1973 r/w section 174 IPC, 1860 r/w section 63 (4) of PMLA, 2002 for non-attendance in compliance with Section 50, PMLA, 2002.
Kejriwal, in his defense, claimed that there was no intentional disobedience on his part and that he always explained the reasons, which have not been contested or found false by the Department.
The next hearing is scheduled for May 4, where Kejriwal’s legal team is expected to file a rejoinder to the ED’s reply.
Read Also: