The Rouse Avenue Court provided no relief to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was sent to judicial custody for 15 more days.
The High Court, after taking the view that the counsel of the State was not served with the copy of the petition, granted the ED time till April 2 to file its response to the said petition and application.
The counsel for Kejriwal, Senior Advocate Dr Singhvi, raised serious concerns regarding the justification and intention behind Kejriwal’s arrest, particularly considering the proximity of the arrest to the upcoming elections.
Dr Singhvi contended that the arrest in question, and consequently the court’s decision, could directly impact the democratic proceedings of the forthcoming national elections. Let’s refrain from delving into the specifics of Kejriwal’s case and instead consider whether the aforementioned ruling truly served justice or not, in view of the fact that the dispute revolves around the sitting chief minister of the capital. In our opinion, the ruling fails to uphold the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence aimed at safeguarding an individual’s freedom and liberty.
Apart from technical issues, the relief was mainly denied as the Court believed that the ED should also be given the opportunity of hearing i.e., by giving them time to file the reply as the counsel of Kejriwal had raised issues of legality and validity regarding his arrest and remand.
The Court opined that these issues cannot be summarily heard and decided. The Court observed that “since there may be some additional material in the possession of the investigating agency, collected during the custodial interrogation of the petitioner herein, which they may wish to place before this Court, which may be crucial to decide the present case. Such material may also be crucial for the petitioner himself.”
Also Read: AMC Seals Hotel’s Kitchen After Insect Is Found In Soup
