The legal battle surrounding the arrest of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Sanjay Singh has intensified as his lawyer, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, presented compelling arguments for his release on bail in the Delhi excise policy case before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Singhvi's central contention revolved around the timing of Singh's arrest, which occurred one-and-a-half years into the investigation. He underscored the fact before the bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, that Singh was apprehended after the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) key witness, Dinesh Arora, who later turned approver, implicated him in his statement. 

Singhvi pointed out the peculiar absence of Singh's name in Arora's initial nine statements, raising questions about the sudden inclusion after a prolonged period of investigation.

Moreover, Singhvi highlighted a critical oversight by the ED in erroneously naming Singh in the chargesheet, which was later rectified following Singh's objection. The ED's belated correction of the chargesheet, albeit after widespread media coverage, underscored procedural irregularities and potential lapses in due diligence.

In response, the Additional Solicitor General representing the ED argued that incriminating documents were found in Singh's possession, suggesting his involvement in illicit activities. However, the Court rightly questioned the significance of such documents, emphasizing that if they were part of the chargesheet and thus public record, Singh's possession would not be incriminating per se.

Crucially, the court probed the ED's rationale for Singh's arrest, particularly in relation to allegations of financial impropriety linked to the Goa elections. Singhvi refuted any such claims, asserting that there was no substantial evidence implicating Singh in any wrongdoing related to electoral finances.

The hearing before the Supreme Court stems from Singh's plea seeking bail in the money laundering case, where he has been in custody since October 4, 2023. Despite the Delhi High Court's denial of bail in February, citing the presence of incriminating evidence, Singhvi reiterated Singh's right to a fair trial and emphasized the need for expedited proceedings.

Acknowledging Singh's right to a fair trial, the judge instructed the trial court to hasten the proceedings once they commence in the current case.