Arvind Kejriwal moves HC against arrest in excise policy case
New Delhi, Mar 23: Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Saturday moved the Delhi High Court challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.
Sources in his Aam Aadmi Party said his legal team would request the high court to hear the matter urgently, preferably on Sunday.
On Friday, a trial court had remanded him in ED's custody till March 28 "for his detailed and sustained interrogation".
In his plea, Kejriwal, who was apprehended by the ED on Friday night, contended that his arrest and remand were illegal and that he was entitled to be released from custody immediately.
The ED had arrested Kejriwal hours after the high court refused to grant him protection from coercive action by the central anti-money laundering agency.
Kejriwal had approached the high court for quashing and setting aside all proceedings including the summonses issued against him.
In that petition, Kejriwal said he is a "vocal critic" of the ruling party, an opposition leader and a partner in the INDIA bloc, and the ED, being under the Centre's control, has been "weaponised".
The case pertains to alleged corruption and money laundering in formulating and executing the Delhi government's excise policy for 2021-22 which was later scrapped.
Top AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh are in judicial custody in the case.
Kejriwal's name has been mentioned multiple times in the charge sheets filed by the ED.
The agency has alleged that the accused were in touch with Kejriwal for formulating the excise policy that resulted in undue benefits to them in return for which they paid kickbacks to the AAP.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Where is question of offence when there is consensual relationship? SC asks
New Delhi (PTI): Where is the question of an offence when a relationship is consensual? the Supreme Court on Monday asked a woman who had challenged an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had quashed an FIR against her former live-in partner in a case of alleged sexual assault on a false promise of marriage.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the woman lived together with the man and also had a child from him.
"Where is the question of offence when there is a consensual relationship? They were living together and she also had a child from him and then there is no marriage and now, she says sexual assault? For 15 years they lived together," Justice Nagarathna remarked.
The woman's counsel told the court that she had lost her husband earlier and was introduced to the accused by her brother-in-law.
The court was also told that the accused had promised to marry her and sexually exploited her.
Justice Nagarathna then asked, "Why did she go and live with him before marriage?"
"She lived with him. She had a child from him. He walks out because there is no marriage bond. Legal bond is not there. He walks out, that is the risk in a live-in relationship. So once he walks out, it does not become a criminal offence," she said.
The woman's lawyer submitted that the accused was already married and had concealed this fact.
"See, if there was marriage, the question of her rights would have been better. She could have filed regarding bigamy. She could have filed for maintenance. She would have got those reliefs. Now since there is no marriage, they live together, this is the risk. They can walk out any day. What do we do?" Justice Nagarathna said.
She suggested that the woman could pursue remedies, such as maintenance for the child, and asked the parties to go for mediation.
"Even if he goes to jail, what will she gain? We can think of some maintenance for the child. Child is now seven years (old). At least, some monetary compensation can be made for the child," Justice Nagarathna said.
The apex court issued a notice in the matter and asked the parties to explore if a settlement could be reached between the petitioner and the accused.
