The Delhi High Court rejected a petition filed by Sanjay Singh,  Member of Parliament from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), on Friday. The petition challenged his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and his subsequent detention in connection with the money laundering case linked to the Delhi Excise Policy scam case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in a recent ruling, dismissed Sanjay Singh's plea in the evening. The judge noted that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is a prestigious investigative agency, and attributing political motives to it could potentially harm the country's reputation. Additionally, the Court stated that, as of now, there is no evidence on record to suggest that Dinesh Arora, whose statements led to Sanjay Singh's arrest, made those statements under pressure or in violation of the law.

The Court also pointed out that the contentions raised by Sanjay Singh's legal representative, suggesting that evidence was maliciously placed against the AAP leader, are not subject to consideration at this juncture.

The case before the High Court revolves around Sanjay Singh's arrest on October 4 following an Enforcement Directorate (ED) search at his residence. Initially, he was placed in ED custody until October 10, and this custody was subsequently extended until October 13. On October 13, he was transferred to judicial custody for a period of 14 days. Singh approached the High Court, contending that his arrest constituted an abuse of the legal process.

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, acting as Singh's legal counsel, presented the argument that Singh is a respected leader who had not received any summons or been asked to appear for questioning prior to his arrest.

In reference to the Supreme Court's judgment in the M3M Reality case, Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India on October 3, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari further asserted that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) should provide the grounds for arrest in writing before executing the arrest.

Vikram Chaudhari also remarked, "The Supreme Court has made a notable statement. In one paragraph, they acknowledge that the ED is a premier agency and emphasize the need for fairness. The Supreme Court has explicitly stated that they cannot act with vindictiveness. However, it is crucial to recognize that, in practice, they still seem to assume multiple roles, acting as the judge, jury, and executioner."

The case against Singh centers on accusations that he played a significant role in formulating and executing the Delhi Excise Policy, which has since been discontinued. This policy was purportedly designed to favor specific liquor manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers.

Also read: Sanjay Singh tells HC: Money Laundering Law to avoid becoming tool of oppression