A formal complaint has been filed in the Supreme Court registry in this regard, terming the ED's affidavit as a "gross disregard of legal processes", especially considering that the case has already come up for final decision in the apex court on Friday. is defined. It was also claimed that the affidavit was submitted without obtaining the approval of the Supreme Court.
Questioning ED's objection to Kejriwal's interim bail, AAP said, "I know very well that even after two years of ED's investigation into the alleged liquor policy scam, not a single rupee or evidence has been recovered to incriminate anyone in this case." Has not happened. Aam Aadmi Party.
Furthermore, the basis of Kejriwal's arrest is based on statements given by other implicated persons in the case.The AAP claimed these included close aides of Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy, Sarath Reddy, Satya Vijay Naik and an ex-BJP CM.
It said that the ED has only relied on the statements of these accused-turned-witnesses who have direct links with the BJP and are benefiting from it.
For example, Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy, who got the Lok Sabha ticket from the NDA, gave a statement to facilitate the bail of his son Raghava Reddy, the AA alleged, adding that another endorser, P. Sarath Reddy, had given a statement to the BJP. Sent Rs 60 crore to the account of. through electoral bonds to secure his bail.
“Some of the statements do not even indicate money laundering or any alleged crime.All the evidence against Arvind Kejriwal, as shown on the basis of the arrest, has come after the arrest of all these people, giving rise to the suspicion that the arrests were systematically carried out as a device to extract statements against Arvind Kejriwal. Has been used as,” AAP said.
Earlier on Thursday, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had opposed the interim bail plea filed by Kejriwal, saying a politician cannot claim a special status more than an ordinary citizen and even if detained for committing a crime. He is equally responsible. Any other citizen.
The affidavit filed by the ED deputy director said there is no principle that justifies giving different treatment to a politician who campaigns against a farmer or a businessman who wants to pursue his business.This matter will be heard in the Supreme Court on Friday.
Questioning ED's objection to Kejriwal's interim bail, AAP said, "I know very well that even after two years of ED's investigation into the alleged liquor policy scam, not a single rupee or evidence has been recovered to incriminate anyone in this case." Has not happened. Aam Aadmi Party.
Furthermore, the basis of Kejriwal's arrest is based on statements given by other implicated persons in the case.The AAP claimed these included close aides of Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy, Sarath Reddy, Satya Vijay Naik and an ex-BJP CM.
It said that the ED has only relied on the statements of these accused-turned-witnesses who have direct links with the BJP and are benefiting from it.
For example, Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy, who got the Lok Sabha ticket from the NDA, gave a statement to facilitate the bail of his son Raghava Reddy, the AA alleged, adding that another endorser, P. Sarath Reddy, had given a statement to the BJP. Sent Rs 60 crore to the account of. through electoral bonds to secure his bail.
“Some of the statements do not even indicate money laundering or any alleged crime.All the evidence against Arvind Kejriwal, as shown on the basis of the arrest, has come after the arrest of all these people, giving rise to the suspicion that the arrests were systematically carried out as a device to extract statements against Arvind Kejriwal. Has been used as,” AAP said.
Earlier on Thursday, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had opposed the interim bail plea filed by Kejriwal, saying a politician cannot claim a special status more than an ordinary citizen and even if detained for committing a crime. He is equally responsible. Any other citizen.
The affidavit filed by the ED deputy director said there is no principle that justifies giving different treatment to a politician who campaigns against a farmer or a businessman who wants to pursue his business.This matter will be heard in the Supreme Court on Friday.
