Evidence may be tampered if Kejriwal given bail: ED

The court deferred the hearing of arguments on the bail application to June 14 after Kejriwal’s counsel requested time to review the ED reply for a detailed rebuttal

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has raised concerns that crucial evidence might be destroyed if Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal is granted bail in the Delhi excise policy case, as the agency opposed Kejriwal’s regular bail application before the Delhi Rouse Avenue court.

ED emphasised that ample evidence links Kejriwal to the offence of money laundering, and his release on bail could impede further investigation into the alleged conspiracy. (File Photo)

In a 182-page reply filed on Friday, ED said that Kejriwal, being a highly influential individual, has the potential to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses. “The applicant is admittedly chief minister in the Govt of NCT of Delhi and hence a highly influential individual coupled with the fact that he is accused of commission of a grave economic offence,” ED said.

The court deferred the hearing of arguments on the bail application to June 14 after Kejriwal’s counsel requested time to review the ED reply for a detailed rebuttal. The agency emphasised that ample evidence links Kejriwal to the offence of money laundering, and his release on bail could impede further investigation into the alleged conspiracy.

Once again ED has resorted to making wild allegations against AAP leadership because, even after two years of investigation, they don’t have any concrete evidence or money recovery in the fake Delhi liquor case, the Aam Aadmi Party said.

“Even Prime Minister Modi recently admitted in an interview that there is no evidence against Arvind Kejriwal. This shows that ED’s attempt here is to carry out a political witch-hunt at the behest of its masters, the BJP,” the party said in a statement.

ED also pointed out that Kejriwal avoided joining the investigation despite receiving nine summonses. The reply mentioned that over 170 mobile phones were changed or destroyed by 36 individuals involved in the Delhi excise policy case, potentially erasing crucial digital evidence and money trails.

“The act of proactive destruction of evidence leads to only one inference that the accused made conscious efforts to destroy evidence of the offence of money laundering,” ED told the court.

Refuting claims that Kejriwal was arrested based on unreliable statements, ED emphasised that the credibility of witnesses can only be tested during the trial, not at the bail stage. The agency also dismissed Kejriwal’s allegations of a malafide arrest as baseless, arguing that the accusations were speculative and not supported by material evidence.

ED contended that Kejriwal did not meet the mandatory conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The agency accused Kejriwal of being intricately involved in the entire conspiracy surrounding the liquor policy case, describing him as the “kingpin” and “key conspirator” working in collusion with other Delhi government officials and AAP leaders.

The ED’s reply detailed how Vijay Nair, a close associate of Kejriwal, allegedly acted as a middleman to secure bribes from stakeholders in the Delhi liquor business in exchange for favourable policy changes. Despite Kejriwal’s denial, witness statements indicated that Nair reported directly to him and other senior AAP leaders.

Additionally, the ED linked another accused, Vinod Chauhan, to Kejriwal, alleging that Chauhan facilitated a ₹25.5 crore transfer from Delhi to Goa and arranged meetings with high court judges through Kejriwal. The ED also accused Kejriwal of demanding kickbacks from the South Group in return for favors in the Excise Policy 2021-22, a claim corroborated by multiple witness statements.

The policy, which aimed to overhaul Delhi’s liquor business, was scrapped following allegations of irregularities and replaced by the previous regime. Kejriwal, 55, was arrested by the ED on March 21 after the Delhi high court denied his request for interim protection from arrest.