A Delhi court has deferred its decision on the bail request of Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) national convenor Arvind Kejriwal regarding the money laundering case linked to the now-defunct excise policy.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) presented documentary evidence indicating that a portion of the alleged proceeds of crime was utilized to cover Kejriwal’s accommodation expenses at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Goa during the 2022 state elections.
The ED asserted that Charanpreet Singh paid Rs 1.5 lakh in installments of Rs 50,000 each to settle the hotel and banquet charges for Kejriwal’s stay. Charanpreet, reportedly managing AAP’s Goa poll funds, allegedly received around Rs 45 crore in cash from various hawala operators and was involved in handling cash for the party’s Goa election campaign.
Additionally, the ED mentioned that witness statements, including one from an individual named Sagar Patel, corroborate the cash payments made to Charanpreet, Prince Kumar, and Rajiv Mondkar for the AAP’s election expenses in Goa.
The ED argued that Kejriwal’s refusal to provide his phone’s password should result in an adverse inference against him, a ground for denying bail even under ordinary bail law. ASG Raju previously informed the court that the Delhi CM’s stay costs were covered partly in cash and partly by the GNCTD Admin Department, with payments initially concealed but later discovered to have come through hawala.
Earlier, the ED opposed Kejriwal’s bail, alleging that he demanded a Rs 100 crore bribe from the South Group for his party. The agency stated that if the AAP commits a crime, the person in charge of the party will be held culpable. The ED also highlighted that when former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia was made an accused, the AAP was not named as an accused.
Kejriwal’s judicial custody was extended after he was produced before the court via video conference. His counsel argued that the case against him relied on statements from tainted individuals, discrediting the prosecution’s case. Kejriwal’s lawyer claimed there were contradictions in the statements made by several co-accused.
