Singh filed two pleas challenging two different Delhi High Court orders—one refusing to set aside his arrest and the other denying him bail. Both pleas were scheduled for hearing before the Court today. The bail plea is now scheduled to be heard next on April 19.
Senior Advocate Dr. AM Singhvi, representing Singh, argued before the Court today that Singh was named as an accused for the first time by Dinesh Arora, who later became an approver in both the ED and CBI cases and was subsequently granted bail. Singhvi highlighted that prior to the incriminating statements given while in ED custody and after securing bail, Arora had given nine other statements over the course of one and a half years in which Singh was not implicated.
Singhvi stressed that Singh had filed a defamation complaint, which led to his arrest by the ED without any summons being issued. He pointed out to the court, “Your Lordships are dealing with it after 1.5 years…there have been 11 exculpatory statements.”
The Senior Counsel further argued that the probe agency initially mentioned the AAP leader’s name instead of Rahul Singh in its supplementary chargesheet, but this mistake was later acknowledged and rectified. ASG SV Raju, representing the ED, countered this by claiming that the error was “immediately” corrected.
Objecting to the use of the word ‘immediately,’ Singhvi pointed out that the error was corrected six months after it was made. By that time, the press had already reported on it, and Singh had lodged a complaint.
Regarding Dinesh Arora, Singhvi argued that he was granted bail because the ED had given a “no-objection.” He remarked, “I wonder in how many cases they give no-objection.”
When the Bench asked whether the agency had mentioned Singh’s involvement with money for the Goa Elections in its ‘reasons to believe,’ Singhvi replied in the negative. In response to another query from the Court, he stated that Raman Chawla had been identified as Dinesh Arora’s “person.”
Citing the legal position regarding the testimony of an approver, Singhvi argued that while Arora’s testimony may be considered by the court, it should be corroborated, which, according to him, has not been done in this case.
The ASG, on the other hand, mentioned that a photograph of one of the Section 50 PMLA statements made by Arora was taken from the ED office and found at Singh’s residence. Singhvi countered this argument.
