“Why don’t you appear on receiving ED summons”: Delhi HC asks Arvind Kejriwal

The Delhi high court on Wednesday asked chief minister Arvind Kejriwal why he was not appearing before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on the summons issued to him by the federal agency in connection with the agency’s probe into the Delhi excise policy case.

The court said that the CM will get to know if he is being summoned as a witness or a suspect pursuant to him appearing before the agency, adding that the probe agency would not arrest him on the first day of appearance but only inquire.

Also Read: ED a political tool: AAP hits out at BJP in Delhi

“Why don’t you appear on receiving the summons? What is preventing you from attending the call?”, the bench led by justice Suresh Kumar Kait asked senior advocate AM Singhvi who was appearing for the CM.

“Pursuant to summons if you attend their call only then you will come to know. They don’t arrest on the first or second day. They only inquire. We have seen many cases,” the bench told Singhvi.

The HC also sought ED’s stand on the petition filed by CM Kejriwal challenging the summons issued to him.

“Advocate Zoheb Hussain appeared on behalf of respondent number 1 (ED) and submits that the plea is not maintainable. He seeks time and is granted 2 weeks to file the reply,” the court said in its order.

The minister has approached the high court three days after he was granted bail by the additional chief metropolitan magistrate (ACMM) Divya Malhotra on March 16 in the case based on the two complaints filed by ED against him for allegedly disobeying probe agency’s summons in the case.

“Offense u/s 174 IPC being bailable, accused is admitted to bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹15,000 with one surety of the like amount,” ACMM said after Kejriwal physically appeared before the court under heavy security.

On Wednesday, Kejriwal appearing through senior advocate Singhvi submitted that the probe agency had not specified if he is being summoned as a witness or suspect adding that he apprehends that he would be arrested in case he appears before the probe agency. He also said that he would appear if an order is passed against no coercive action.

“I’m not avoiding you. I’m not running. I need protection otherwise. I am not a common criminal. Where can I run? Can anyone have roots in the society more than me? I am saying I will appear physically or virtually, for any duration, but I need protection,” Singhvi stated.

Opposing the maintainability of the pleas, ED appearing through additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju said CM had approached the court challenging the summons.

ED had filed two complaints on February 3 and March 6 against Kejriwal seeking initiation of prosecution under section 174 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for not appearing before the investigators despite repeated summons issued to him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Under section 174 of the IPC, the person not appearing on the summons issued by a public servant shall be punished with imprisonment up to one month and a fine of ₹500.

The ED, in its complaint filed before the city court, submitted that he has no legal right to know whether he is being summoned as a witness or an accused in the Delhi liquor excise policy case and blamed him for intentionally omitting to obey ED’s summons and for raising “frivolous” objections.

ED officials, however, said that the court has not given Kejriwal immunity from not appearing before the agency.

“We have issued fresh summons to him for March 21,” said an officer.

The federal investigating agency has till date issued nine summonses to Kejriwal, asking him to join the investigation being conducted in the alleged money laundering case related to the Delhi liquor excise policy case - on March 4, February 26, February 19, February 2, January 18, January 3, and December 22 and November 2 last year.

On Sunday, the probe agency had issued a fresh summon to Kejriwal asking him to appear before it on March 21 for questioning.

The sessions court on March 15 had refused to stay the summons issued by the magistrate court while taking cognisance of the two complaints moved by the federal agency.