AAP Lodges Complaints Supreme Court as Probe Agency Opposes Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail

GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 10th May. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) stated on Thursday that Arvind Kejriwal’s legal team strongly objected to the affidavit filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Supreme Court, which opposed the interim bail plea made by the Delhi Chief Minister.

A formal complaint has been submitted to the Supreme Court’s registry condemning the ED’s affidavit for disregarding legal procedures, especially since the matter is set for a final decision in the top court on Friday. The complaint also mentioned that the affidavit was submitted without the approval of the Supreme Court.

Questioning the ED’s opposition to Mr. Kejriwal’s interim bail, the AAP highlighted that despite two years of investigation into the alleged liquor policy scam, no incriminating evidence or money has been found involving anyone in the Aam Aadmi Party.

The AAP further claimed that Mr. Kejriwal’s arrest was based on statements from other individuals involved in the case, such as Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy, Sarath Reddy, Satya Vijay Naik, and a close aide of a former BJP Chief Minister.

The AAP accused the ED of relying solely on statements from these accused-turned-witnesses who have ties to and benefit from the BJP.
For example, the AAP alleged that Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy, who received an NDA Lok Sabha ticket, provided a statement to help his son, Raghav Reddy, secure bail, while another approver, P. Sarath Reddy, allegedly transferred 60 crore to the BJP’s account through electoral bonds to secure his bail.

The AAP stated, “Some statements do not even suggest money laundering or any other criminal offense. All evidence against Arvind Kejriwal emerged after the arrest of these individuals, raising suspicions that arrests were used to coerce statements against Arvind Kejriwal.”

Earlier on Thursday, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed Mr. Kejriwal’s interim bail plea, arguing that a politician is not entitled to special treatment and can be arrested and detained for committing offenses like any other citizen.

The affidavit filed by the ED’s Deputy Director stated that there is no justification for treating a politician differently from a farmer or a businessman who wants to pursue their profession.

The case will be heard in the Supreme Court on Friday.