New Delhi: The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) said on Thursday that the legal team of Arvind Kejriwal on Thursday raised strong objection to the affidavit filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Supreme Court opposing the interim bail plea moved by the Delhi Chief Minister.
A formal complaint has been lodged in this regard with the Supreme Court’s registry denouncing the ED’s affidavit as “blatant disregard of legal procedures”, especially considering that the matter is already slated for a final decision in the top court on Friday. It also claimed that the affidavit was submitted without obtaining the SC’s approval.
Questioning the ED’s objection to the interim bail of Kejriwal, the AAP said it is well known that even after two years of investigation by the ED in the alleged liquor policy scam, not a single rupee or piece of evidence has been recovered incriminating anybody in the Aam Aadmi Party.
Further, the grounds of the arrest of Kejriwal are based on statements made by other implicated persons in the case, viz. Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy, Sarath Reddy, Satya Vijay Naik, and a close aide of an ex-BJP CM, the AAP claimed.
The ED has relied solely on the statements of these accused-turned-witnesses with direct links to and benefitting from the BJP, it said.
For instance, Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy, who received an NDA Lok Sabha ticket, gave a statement to facilitate the bail of his son, Raghav Reddy, the AAP alleged, adding that another approver, P. Sarath Reddy, sent Rs 60 crore to the BJP’s account through electoral bonds to secure his bail.
“Some of the statements do not even indicate the commission of money laundering or any predicate offence. All the evidence against Arvind Kejriwal as shown in the grounds of arrest have come after the arrest of all these people, leading to a suspicion that the arrest has been systematically used as a device to coerce statements against Arvind Kejriwal,” the AAP said.
Earlier on Thursday, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed the interim bail plea moved by Kejriwal, saying that a politician can claim no “special status” higher than that of an ordinary citizen and is as much liable to be arrested and detained for committing offences as any other citizen.
The affidavit filed by ED’s Deputy Director said that there is no principle that justifies giving differential treatment to a politician for campaigning over a farmer or a businessman who wishes to pursue his vocation.
The matter will come up for hearing in the Supreme Court on Friday.
(IANS)
