The thrust of the petition by Kejriwal was that Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was not complied with since “reasons to arrest” him were not sufficient or in consonance with the evidence obtained.
Section 19 of PMLA allows the central agency to arrest a person if it has “reasons to believe” that he is guilty of the offence of money laundering.
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi had argued that there was no iota of material in the grounds of arrest.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, today argued that the material being cited by ED now to defend Kejriwal’s arrest was not present during his arrest.
“Every material in ground of arrest predates July, August 2023. All this evidence was in Sisodia case… so what was new in Arvind Kejriwal case … evidence is all prior to August 2023,” Singhvi said.
He also pointed out the delay in arresting Kejriwal though the probe into the case began more than 1.5 years ago.
“Over 1.5 years, they conducted the investigation. No action against Kejriwal. There was no necessity to arrest based on material that was there with ED in July-August 2023,” Singhvi argued.
Source: Barandbench
