I’m a victim of witch-hunt, falsely implicated: Kejriwal

New Delhi: Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has contended before the Delhi High Court that he is a victim of “witch-hunt” by the ED and that cancellation of his bail granted by a trial court in the excise policy-linked money laundering case would tantamount to “grave miscarriage of justice”.

Opposing the Enforcement Directorate’s plea challenging his bail in the case, the embattled chief minister said discretionary orders of bail cannot be set aside merely on “perceptions and fanciful imagination” of the prosecution.

“The order passed by the special judge granting bail was not only well reasoned but prima facie showed a due application of mind in considering as well as faithfully recording and dealing with ‘relevant arguments and contentions raised on behalf of both the parties’.

“Therefore, to cancel the order would tantamount to grave miscarriage of justice,” Kejriwal said in his reply filed to the ED’s petition. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener urged the high court to dismiss ED’s petition and to vacate the June 25 interim order by which the trial court’s June 20 decision granting him bail was stayed. On Wednesday, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, who was scheduled to hear the ED’s plea, was informed by the counsel for the probe agency that they were served with Kejriwal’s reply to their petition only late Tuesday night and the agency required some time to file a rejoinder.

While the probe agency’s lawyer submitted that the copy of the reply was served to them at 11 pm on Tuesday, Kejriwal’s counsel maintained that it was served to the investigating officer (IO) of the case at 1 pm. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, mentioned the matter before the court, saying a specific time be fixed for the hearing as there is extreme urgency in the case. However, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the ED, submitted that the agency was served with the reply copy of Kejriwal only on Tuesday night and they need some time to go through the response and file their rejoinder to it.

He contended that the documents are supposed to be served to the advocate appearing in the case and not the IO. The court said it is not disputed that the ED was served with the reply copy on Tuesday and the agency was entitled to file a rejoinder to it. The court granted time to the ED to file its rejoinder and listed the matter for hearing on July 15. Kejriwal, in his reply, contended that the arrest was “illegally made to harass and humiliate” a political opponent and there was no material in possession of ED on the basis of which further incarceration can be justified.