The Delhi high court on Friday refused to interfere with the 'malicious' arrest of Aam Aadmi Party leader Sanjay Singh by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case related to the now-scrapped excise policy of the Delhi government, saying it cannot impute political motive to a 'premier' investigating agency in the absence of material on record. It also said Singh's was not a 'prima facie case of no evidence at all'.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the AAP parliamentarian's petition challenging his arrest as well as remand in ED custody, and said the reputation of a premier investigating agency has a direct relation to the reputation of the country being a fair entity.
"This court will not insinuate at this stage or impute any political motive to the investigating agency in absence of any material on record and does not consider it a prima facie case of no evidence at all," the judge said while pronouncing the verdict.
"At a premature stage when investigation is at a nascent stage, this court does not find any ground to interfere at all with order of remand or arrest. Dismissed," ordered the judge.
The court stated that deciding whether a case is politically motivated essentially involves deciding whether an investigating agency was under the control of a political party, and it cannot decide the same without any material on record.
"This court cannot and will not either be a part of this discussion or adjudication unless the matter in issue along with material is paced before it for adjudication. The court of this country have been best left untouched by such influence and are bound to the oath of being fair and equal without any bias," it said.
A detailed copy of the order is awaited.
Singh, who was arrested by the ED on October 4, had moved the high court last week challenging his arrest and remand in the money laundering case related to alleged irregularities in the Delhi excise policy for 2021-22.
Singh said his arrest was 'illegal, malicious and a classic case of perversion of power'.
It was only based on the statement of an approver, he said.
While pronouncing the order, Justice Sharma emphasised that the law was equal for a public figure and any other individual, and a probe cannot be quashed at a nascent stage only because the accused is a public figure or the pendency of criminal proceeding would adversely affect his political future.
The court, however, said it would provide the constitutional shield of protection if investigation is conducted through lawless means.
The court rejected Singh's contention that the approver's statement was extracted under pressure, saying the determination as to whether it was extracted under pressure cannot be gone into at this stage.
"There is nothing to suggest at this stage that the law agency used lawless means to achieve a pre-decided end and has extracted statement of approver. At this stage though accused in a public figure, the public figure has to stand at an equal footing as any other accused," it said.
The court said when there are allegations of money laundering with potential gains to political funding, it is the obligation of the State to ascertain the veracity of these claims as citizens have the legitimate right to uncover the truth through unbiased investigation.
Although a person has the right to reputation and dignity, the court said, upholding it cannot come in the way of the right to the state to investigate any crime even if against a public figure.
"This court is sitting as a judge with eyes that only look at parties with equality. For a court, a criminal case as to be judged with criminal jurisprudence and there are no political or apolitical cases or persons. This court examines a case from the prism of enactment of law and judicial precedents and does not get swayed by political affiliations nor reads the law with coloured lens of political bias," asserted the court.
Earlier, Singh had argued that the arrest of the 'reputed leader' was a 'knee-jerk reaction' as it was done without complying with due process of law and so it deserved the court's 'condemnation' to not only protect his liberty but also set the right precedent.
The ED's money laundering case stems from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) first information report (FIR).
According to the CBI and the ED, irregularities were committed while modifying the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 and undue favours were extended to licence holders.
It is alleged that Singh played a key role in the formulation and implementation of the policy, which benefited certain liquor manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, for monetary considerations.
After his arrest, the trial court had remanded Singh in the custody of the anti-money laundering agency.
On October 13, he was sent to judicial custody till October 27.
